Variant Rules For The Brcs

[Mark_Aurel]

What types of variant rules should the BRCS include, if any?

Basically - what are the Birthright-specific issues that the current rules set doesn't deal well with at all?

For instance, a variant for Elven spellcasters being more nature-oriented has been debated for a while, with a separate spell list, etc. Another example might be a "social system" - a way to mechanically show the status of characters in social terms, to aid in making courtly intrigues and the like interact a bit more with the rules.

Any ideas or thoughts on this?

[Birthright-L]

> What types of variant rules should the BRCS include, if any?Basically - what are the Birthright-specific issues that the current rules set doesn't deal well with at all?For instance, a variant for Elven spellcasters being more nature-oriented has been debated for a while, with a separate spell list, etc. Another example might be a "social system" - a way to mechanically show the status of characters in social terms, to aid in making courtly intrigues and the like interact a bit more with the rules.Any ideas or thoughts on this?



I`ll toss in a couple more ideas here for you to play with, though I`m not

actually putting them forth as legitimate suggestions for the BRCS:



The (horribly complicated) Aria system has four different social traits:

Influence, Leverage, Renown, and Recognition. These traits were kept at

multiple levels, such as having a different Renown value in a particular

city, for example. While this is horribly unwieldy and unnecessary for most

games, Birthright already has convinient demographics: Realms and Provinces.

It might be kind of cool to have some kind of Renown score that only applies

to particular provinces (perhaps with the purchase of a feat) representing a

particularly heroic or villainous reputation with the locals, perhaps. I

think players might like it.



The Star Wars system had a "system" for keeping track of your standing with

organizations. Basically after an adventure that dealt with an

organization, your value in that organization might go up and this value was

a bonus to interact with that organization or its members. For a very

organization-heavy Birthright game, this might be useful, especially for

non-regents.



Some guidelines on generating a family history for your nobles might be

cool. If I remember right didn`t 1e Oriental Adventures have random charts

for heritage, birth order, and even inheritence? That might be cool, as

well as some convinient method for family trees or a random chart of

"ancestor importance".



I`d like some decent background rules. Both the Wheel of Time`s background

feats and d20Modern`s system of Occupations would make good examples that

could easily almost directly `port right into Birthright.



Some optional rules and guidelines on how to play/DM a fun low-magic

`realistic` BR campaign might be a welcome addition, though I could see why

you wouldn`t want to. (It`s not something that would conviniently fit in a

sidebar.)



I`d like an alternate magic system that focussed on the use of sources and

ley lines, even for non-regents.



-Lord Rahvin

[kgauck]

ge -----

From: <lordrahvin@SOFTHOME.NET>

Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 2:47 AM





> Some guidelines on generating a family history for your nobles might be

> cool. If I remember right didn`t 1e Oriental Adventures have random

charts

> for heritage, birth order, and even inheritence? That might be cool, as

> well as some convinient method for family trees or a random chart of

> "ancestor importance".



The problem with random charts is that they`ll run afoul of your local

setting really quickly. My own premice is that there is a ruler for every

realm, a count (or equivilent) for every province and as many lords as there

are levels in the province. This means there are only 24 landed families in

Stjordvik and 8 in Illien, with half again as many in guilds and temples.

We always know the name of the rulers, and where there is a PS, we know the

counts as well. It gets hard to be random when the numbers are small and

too many of the figures can`t be random. What makes more sense is a set of

principles DM`s can use in assigning families to players.



Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

[Osprey]

What types of variant rules should the BRCS include, if any?

Basically - what are the Birthright-specific issues that the current rules set doesn&#39;t deal well with at all?


Hmmm,
Well, I&#39;ve been doing my best to post specific topics on this board concerning the areas that need improvement/change, and what alternate systems I&#39;ve come up with.
Specifically, here are some:
1) The battlesystem needs to be improved; the War Cards of the old BR were terrible, by far its lamest aspect IMO. I&#39;ve been working on a miniatures-based system that still uses the basic rules laid out in BRCS, with some modifications. It still needs some playtesting to work out kinks and game balance issues, but it&#39;s a continuing work in progress. I would love to see any other alternatives folks have worked out. BRCS relies on players having the old 2e material (the war cards) in order to use it at all, unless you make some yourself. That definitely needs to change in order for new players to be able to explore the BR world with materials they can have easier access to.

2) A bit more power to the ECL&#39;s for scion templates - hit points and some level attributes is a good idea, IMO.

3) Suggested guidelines for XP awards for regent / political actions.

4) Clarifications on the Domain mechanics concerning Sources, Ley Lines, etc., and how courts work for Source Regents. Does such a ruler have an arcane court composed of magicians, apprentices, scholars, and sages? Or are Realm Actions impossible for source regents? I would very much like to see source regents capable of ruling multiple sources as a realm action, simply to keep them in balance with other regents that way. Also, having an arcane court would allow regents to do arcan domain actions without using character actions. I&#39;ve had to extrapolate the BRCS rules on this, but the way things are described makes it essential that source regents use character actions for all source-type actions&#33; It makes it very hard to compete as a source regent when there&#39;s no court to expand your personal power beyond your normal reach.
a: Realm Spells take months to research (which is fine, but it needs to be considered for balance of character actions), and the GB cost for (typically) gold-poor source regents is immense.
b: Virtual guilds were an excellent sysytem to allow powerful source regents some income and intelligence in their stronger areas of power. Good job there&#33; :D On the other hand, gold requirements for spells, research, and ley lines are quite steep, and the average source regent is dependent on other regents for the gold he needs for his work, or using all of his RP with Alchemy. I think toning down some of the GB requirements would help establish source regents as somewhat more independent (and thus, mysterious if they want to be).
c: I decided to use Knowledge: Arcana (Kn: Nature is equally appropriate) as the synergy skill for creating and ruling sources. As the rules stand, Administrate is the synergystic skill, which makes almost no sense. I would suggest a change along these lines for the 2nd BRCS rules set.

5) The idea of Druid regents was introduced but not very well explained. I really like the idea, but there&#39;s definite need for clarification of mechanics. How do they compete with arcane source regents? Can they cast realm spells without any sort of holding? Why not allow them to build Sacred Groves or Circles whose level is equal to the Source potential rather than the province level (but still fills either the Temple or Source slots)? This would allow for more direct competition between mages and druids. As things stand now, it seems druids have power only where mages don&#39;t come in and just "take over." Essentially, the mages are unopposed on a regency level, and can only be blocked via roleplaying options (which are good, but unstructured as compared to the normal political rules for other regents).

Well, that&#39;s my main set of issues and suggestions for BRCS rules.

-Osprey

[swashbuck]

there was a very nice article in a White Dwarf for the Warhammer Fantasy Role Playing Game. There you had some different social levels, each with sublevels, and you could advance. It also had some financial aspects in it, how to maintain your social level monetarily, and what happens if you fail in this.

I can have a look at it again, i just have to find it in my "archive", hehe






no RISC, no fun

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by Osprey@Aug 11 2003, 03:00 PM

3) Suggested guidelines for XP awards for regent / political actions.

-Osprey
This one is already in Chapt 8, page 150. Many people seem to overlook Chapt 8.

[Mark_Aurel]

Okay, here are some of the things that are on my "to do" list so far; I&#39;m not sure how much of this will be included as variants in the final version or not, but here&#39;s a summary of what I have in mind:

- A system for tracking the prestige, social standing and reputation of individuals.

- An outline of a system of "in-between politics." The BR rules have specific rules for politics on the domain level, and there are always the standard rules for D&D characters, but the intermediate step between these two isn&#39;t really covered by anything - things like court intrigues and local politics in general. Of course, there&#39;s a limit to what must or should be tracked mechanically, but this is still an area that should be examined a bit more closely.

- Variant Elven magic. This has been debated quite a bit already.

- Elven provinces and planar traits. I.e. Elven provinces have erratic time, enhanced charm magic, etc. Should be fairly straightforward.

- Quick battle resolution system.

- Some demographic stuff and rules to determine province layout and habitation.

These are basically the types of rules I had in mind when I put out a call for variants and variant ideas. If anyone has any proposals, either specific or just as an outline or idea, or feedback or thoughts on the summary above, that&#39;d be great.

[Birthright-L]

> Okay, here are some of the things that are on my "to do" list so far; I`m not sure how much of this will be included as variants in the final version or not, but here`s a summary of what I have in mind:

>

> - A system for tracking the prestige, social standing and reputation of individuals.

>

> - An outline of a system of "in-between politics." The BR rules have specific rules for politics on the domain level, and there are always the standard rules for D&D characters, but the intermediate step between these two isn`t really covered by anything - things like court intrigues and local politics in general. Of course, there`s a limit to what must or should be tracked mechanically, but this is still an area that should be examined a bit more closely.

>

> - Variant Elven magic. This has been debated quite a bit already.

>

> - Elven provinces and planar traits. I.e. Elven provinces have erratic time, enhanced charm magic, etc. Should be fairly straightforward.

>

> - Quick battle resolution system.

>

> - Some demographic stuff and rules to determine province layout and habitation.

>

> These are basically the types of rules I had in mind when I put out a call for variants and variant ideas. If anyone has any proposals, either specific or just as an outline or idea, or feedback or thoughts on the summary above, that`d be great.







I`d just like to say that I really appreciate the latest efforts of the BRCS

team to keep the community informed of what issues are getting their

attention. I think the post above represents the exact amount of

information I`d like to hear from the team prior to their release of a draft

of such ideas. It`s a significant improvement. It`s appreciated.



(I`d also like to take this time to apologize to anyone I`ve misquoted in

the last week or two. My email server is doing weird things like cutting

off the last few lines of my messages or messages that I`m quoting. I

haven`t been able to track down the problem yet.)



-Lord Rahvin

[Osprey]

QUOTE (Osprey @ Aug 11 2003, 03:00 PM)

3) Suggested guidelines for XP awards for regent / political actions.

-Osprey

This one is already in Chapt 8, page 150. Many people seem to overlook Chapt 8.


Don&#39;t worry, I didn&#39;t miss it, I just think it wasn&#39;t very extensively developed, and could stand to be a lot more specific regarding different domain actions and some specific examples. A few paragraphs isn&#39;t really enough for something as complex as challenge ratings. Much like the way the 3e DMG is very detailed about awards for killing monsters, but very vague about guidelines for story-based xp awards and how to make it work in a game.
I think we can do better than that. :)

Osprey

[RaspK_FOG]

Well, all in all, it is not a lot different from RPing XP awards, and ad hoc rules the day in these cases... Except if you are able to assign XP awards for the ammount of success in these same cases&#33; My DM could do that with pretty much the same ease he would have had he looked down a table&#33;

Theoritecally, though, XP awards could be given in regard to how well you handled the situation, and assigning it a "virtual" CR. For example, if fighting with the enemy country and winning against it brilliantly would give you ___ XP, then solving the matter without sheer force but diplomacy should give a portion of the same number, proportionally large according to the success achieved by your players&#33;

:blink: I am bad at explaining things... :P

[Osprey]

Well, all in all, it is not a lot different from RPing XP awards, and ad hoc rules the day in these cases... Except if you are able to assign XP awards for the ammount of success in these same cases&#33; My DM could do that with pretty much the same ease he would have had he looked down a table&#33;

Theoritecally, though, XP awards could be given in regard to how well you handled the situation, and assigning it a "virtual" CR. For example, if fighting with the enemy country and winning against it brilliantly would give you ___ XP, then solving the matter without sheer force but diplomacy should give a portion of the same number, proportionally large according to the success achieved by your players

Someone asked recently about xp awards for regent ations, and I guess my reflection was that good explanations are especially helpful to DM&#39;s new to the game, but might always clarify things even to veterans. Ad hoc is really slippery without a solid frame of reference.
Osprey

[RaspK_FOG]

Sorry for being vague/using elglish wrongfully... More or less, I meant to say that most people assign XP awards for RPing ad hoc, not that it&#39;s the best solution. In my ways, RPing and Domain Actions are awarded according to the solution I mentioned, that is, according to the level of success the domain action proves to be in regard to the challenge itself. If the success is complete and unquestionable, then full XP should be awarded. If the problem is more delicate, I really don&#39;t know: individual situations need individualised thinking, except if you manage to tak eall possible situations into account and think them over...

If the design team can cope up with it, it would be great, and the should be congratulated, but such a success is really tough a noogie, isn&#39;t it?

[Green Knight]

In my mind it really doesn&#39;t matter WHY something made it into the BR setting, only that it did. I&#39;m highly sceptical about changing basic stuff, and actually not caring WHY it is changed (wheter to be more 3Eish or to fit someones canception of how the writers REALLY intended BR to be).

Take healing magic for example; In BR, only clerics can heal. There is nothing more to say on the subject. If some players don&#39;t like this, too bad, they can make their own house rules. If DnD 3E gives healing magic to bards, change it, because they do not in BR.

Bloodlines are an add-on system, so it stays that way. Bloodlines come in tainted, minor, major, great, and true variants. There are minor, major and great blood abilities.

Druids are priests of Erik. They&#39;re not "druids" in the 3E sense that worships nature. No, they are priests of Erik. Elves can&#39;t be druids, because druids are priests of Erik. There are no elven gods and no elven clerics, paladins (or druids).

I could go on...but I have made my point. To me, the only worthwile BRCS is one that stays true to the original. And I&#39;m not talking about the typos, the inconsistencies or the plain crappy stuff. I&#39;m talking about the important stuff, the things that gave flavor to the world of BR.

When that is said, I&#39;ll be the first to admitt that there are much to be gained from playing with the setting a little. I like to do so, and have included elven druids, clerics of Erik, and worse things beside in my many BR campaigns over the years. So have other people, and some of these ideas are SOOO good that they desreve to be included in the BRCS. But NOT as part of the main body of rules&#33;

Use sidebars instead, or "optional rules" or entire appendixes to present variant rules. I&#39;d love to se the "elven druid" as a optional rule, or "he lerics of Erik and their conflict with their nomadic druid brethren" sidebar, or the Bloodlines by points" appendix.

Cheers
Bjørn

[Doyle]

This seems to be an acceptable compromise. The arguments on 3e

BR are at the stage where I usually delete the thread as it comes in -

I`m not saying that there aren`t some really brilliant ideas in amongst

them, of the few that I`ve read, there has been some really well thought

out ideas and arguments, but after a very short while it just didn`t

have the feel of the BR I had come to enjoy. Personally I don`t feel

that 3e suits BR. I enjoy playing 3e in other campaigns, but the BR

that I run (even with its little house rules), I`ll keep to 2e for the

moment.

A BRCS that has the non-standard BR items as either side bars or

as an appendix would be what I`d prefer to see.

<Ok, so this is just a "me too!" post, but it`s a while since the

statement has been put clearly.>



Regards,

Doyle.



-----Original Message-----



Green Knight wrote:

In my mind it really doesn`t matter WHY something made it into the BR

setting, only that it did. I`m highly sceptical about changing basic

stuff, and actually not caring WHY it is changed (wheter to be more

3Eish or to fit someones canception of how the writers REALLY intended

BR to be).



Take healing magic for example; In BR, only clerics can heal. There is

nothing more to say on the subject. If some players don`t like this, too

bad, they can make their own house rules. If DnD 3E gives healing magic

to bards, change it, because they do not in BR.



Bloodlines are an add-on system, so it stays that way. Bloodlines come

in tainted, minor, major, great, and true variants. There are minor,

major and great blood abilities.



Druids are priests of Erik. They`re not "druids" in the 3E

sense that worships nature. No, they are priests of Erik. Elves can`t be

druids, because druids are priests of Erik. There are no elven gods and

no elven clerics, paladins (or druids).



I could go on...but I have made my point. To me, the only worthwile

BRCS is one that stays true to the original. And I`m not talking about

the typos, the inconsistencies or the plain crappy stuff. I`m talking

about the important stuff, the things that gave flavor to the world of

BR.



When that is said, I`ll be the first to admitt that there are much to

be gained from playing with the setting a little. I like to do so, and

have included elven druids, clerics of Erik, and worse things beside in

my many BR campaigns over the years. So have other people, and some of

these ideas are SOOO good that they desreve to be included in the BRCS.

But NOT as part of the main body of rules&#33;



Use sidebars instead, or "optional rules" or entire

appendixes to present variant rules. I`d love to se the "elven

druid" as a optional rule, or "he lerics of Erik and their

conflict with their nomadic druid brethren" sidebar, or the

Bloodlines by points" appendix.



Cheers

Bjørn

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by Osprey@Aug 20 2003, 10:18 AM

Well, all in all, it is not a lot different from RPing XP awards, and ad hoc rules the day in these cases... Except if you are able to assign XP awards for the ammount of success in these same cases&#33; My DM could do that with pretty much the same ease he would have had he looked down a table&#33;

Theoritecally, though, XP awards could be given in regard to how well you handled the situation, and assigning it a "virtual" CR. For example, if fighting with the enemy country and winning against it brilliantly would give you ___ XP, then solving the matter without sheer force but diplomacy should give a portion of the same number, proportionally large according to the success achieved by your players

Someone asked recently about xp awards for regent ations, and I guess my reflection was that good explanations are especially helpful to DM&#39;s new to the game, but might always clarify things even to veterans. Ad hoc is really slippery without a solid frame of reference.
Osprey
Here is something that I had originally proposed for inclusion in the BRCS for domain action experience, but we dissed it as being too complex.

Variant
Award experience for successful domain actions. This method is of the most benefit to a PBEM or domain based game. The regent gains experience as if it was an even CR encounter, that is his character level is equal to the CR. Modify the CR based upon the modified DC of the domain action. On a successful action against DC 15 the CR for the experience award is equal to the regent’s character level, modify this by 1 for every 2 modifiers to the DC. If the modified DC is 17, the regent gains experience equivalent to a CR of 2, if the modified DC is 13 the regent gains experience equivalent to a CR ½ encounter. For example a 5th level regent successfully accomplishes a domain action with a CR of 15, he would receive 1,500 experience points, if the DC was reduced to 9 he would only receive 500 experience points (an effective CR 2), if the DC was increased to 19 he would receive 3,000 experience points. Greater challenges gain greater rewards.

[Osprey]

Variant
Award experience for successful domain actions. This method is of the most benefit to a PBEM or domain based game. The regent gains experience as if it was an even CR encounter, that is his character level is equal to the CR. Modify the CR based upon the modified DC of the domain action. On a successful action against DC 15 the CR for the experience award is equal to the regent’s character level, modify this by 1 for every 2 modifiers to the DC. If the modified DC is 17, the regent gains experience equivalent to a CR of 2, if the modified DC is 13 the regent gains experience equivalent to a CR ½ encounter. For example a 5th level regent successfully accomplishes a domain action with a CR of 15, he would receive 1,500 experience points, if the DC was reduced to 9 he would only receive 500 experience points (an effective CR 2), if the DC was increased to 19 he would receive 3,000 experience points. Greater challenges gain greater rewards.


Hmmm...I have a hangup with xp awards based so heavily on lucky dice rolls. It says the regent who uses RP to aid domain actions gets little to no XP for succeeding at them. I feel that good strategies deserve xp awards, even if the outcome is nearly certain. It&#39;s the smart players who win in the political arena, rarely the big gamblers. If you&#39;re "average" DC for a political action is 15, you will fail 3 out of 4 times. What decent regent is willing to rule by those odds when he has Rp to burn?
Thus, in your system the good rulers (those with a high rate of success) are those who use their RP to lower the DC, yet the best rulers advance the slowest&#33; How does that make sense?

Osprey

Hmmm - wait - you are talking about the final DC, modified by skill synergies, holdings, and RP expenditures, right? Or are you meaning the base DC as the xp award with the actual d20 roll modified by the conditionals? My understanding is that you meant the first option, yeah?

[Birthright-L]

> Hmmm...I have a hangup with xp awards based so heavily on lucky dice rolls. It says the regent who uses RP to aid domain actions gets little to no XP for succeeding at them. I feel that good strategies deserve xp awards, even if the outcome is nearly certain. It`s the smart players who win in the political arena, rarely the big gamblers. If you`re "average" DC for a political action is 15, you will fail 3 out of 4 times. What decent regent is willing to rule by those odds when he has Rp to burn?

> Thus, in your system the good rulers (those with a high rate of success) are those who use their RP to lower the DC, yet the best rulers advance the slowest&#33; How does that make sense?





Rather that assigning XP based on successful domain actions, I think it

might be wiser to assign XP based on the successful resolution of random

events. This seems to be a far more "personal" area of regent-control,

while offering the greatest number of possible methods of execution, and

giving players control over just how much risk to take in regards to gaining

XP. Some random events could be inserted for the specific use of granting

XP to regents, or their lieutenants, or whatever. Most importantly, random

events could be changed over time by a DM willing to do it, and can even be

adapted to specific characters, realms, and story plots whereas arbitrary

awards for general domain actions, really can`t.



--



Something to consider (not for the BRCS):

Another completely different aspect I used for an old house game that was

run in the style of PbeM was that I gave an Advancement Value to all the

domain actions. Most Domain Actions had an Advancement Value of 1, others

such as Declare War and Diplomacy had as much as 3. Because of the nature

of the way the story unfolded, there were a few times when these Advancement

Values had temporary modifiers such as when Rhoesone and Ghoere both got +1

Advancement for Declare War and Contest domain actions. These values were

used rather simply: At the end of each turn you add up all your Advancement

Values together for that turn. Roll a d20. If the result is less than your

total Advancement Value, you level up. It was really simplistic, but at the

time it satisfied my criteria of awarding greater competency to more

personal or influential domain actions without having to keep track of

frivilous values (like ExP) that weren`t all that useful at the domain

level. Generally speaking, domain actions that primarily effected your

domain were worth less than domain actions that effected other domains, and

thus got you more in the web of politics in the world and the story plots of

the game. My only test for this worked really well; but it would have

worked better if character level (Advancement Level) had more uses.



-Lord Rahvin

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by Osprey@Aug 24 2003, 03:13 PM

Variant
Award experience for successful domain actions. This method is of the most benefit to a PBEM or domain based game. The regent gains experience as if it was an even CR encounter, that is his character level is equal to the CR. Modify the CR based upon the modified DC of the domain action. On a successful action against DC 15 the CR for the experience award is equal to the regent’s character level, modify this by 1 for every 2 modifiers to the DC. If the modified DC is 17, the regent gains experience equivalent to a CR of 2, if the modified DC is 13 the regent gains experience equivalent to a CR ½ encounter. For example a 5th level regent successfully accomplishes a domain action with a CR of 15, he would receive 1,500 experience points, if the DC was reduced to 9 he would only receive 500 experience points (an effective CR 2), if the DC was increased to 19 he would receive 3,000 experience points. Greater challenges gain greater rewards.


Hmmm...I have a hangup with xp awards based so heavily on lucky dice rolls. It says the regent who uses RP to aid domain actions gets little to no XP for succeeding at them. I feel that good strategies deserve xp awards, even if the outcome is nearly certain. It&#39;s the smart players who win in the political arena, rarely the big gamblers. If you&#39;re "average" DC for a political action is 15, you will fail 3 out of 4 times. What decent regent is willing to rule by those odds when he has Rp to burn?
Thus, in your system the good rulers (those with a high rate of success) are those who use their RP to lower the DC, yet the best rulers advance the slowest&#33; How does that make sense?

Osprey

Hmmm - wait - you are talking about the final DC, modified by skill synergies, holdings, and RP expenditures, right? Or are you meaning the base DC as the xp award with the actual d20 roll modified by the conditionals? My understanding is that you meant the first option, yeah?
Yes the final DC of the action is the one that determines the xp equivalent.

True, the regent who modifies the result such that the success of the action is almost automatic would gain very little experience. This was by design, because he would have reduced the challenge of the action but exerting his "influence". If it is not much of a challenge then there should not be much of a reward. This equates fairly well with the method that exp are awarded in the adventuring arena, if it is "too easy" then the character gains very little. There has to be a challenge and the greater the challenge that is overcome the greater are the rewards gained.

[Osprey]

True, the regent who modifies the result such that the success of the action is almost automatic would gain very little experience. This was by design, because he would have reduced the challenge of the action but exerting his "influence". If it is not much of a challenge then there should not be much of a reward. This equates fairly well with the method that exp are awarded in the adventuring arena, if it is "too easy" then the character gains very little. There has to be a challenge and the greater the challenge that is overcome the greater are the rewards gained.

I agree with the principle that greater challenge equals greater reward, only I don&#39;t think the single roll of a d20 adequately represents a PC overcoming a challenge. I think intelligent approaches to a challenging problem are worthy of great reward, yet such a system rewards the foolish risk-taker who gets lucky. Is this the character who deserves to level up?

Great challenges can be overcome in seemingly effortless ways by the proper application of strategy and technique. But is nothing learned, no skills improved or refined through such an approach?

In truth, failure often teaches as much as (or more than) success. Unfortunately, D&D doesn&#39;t operate on this principle, so I&#39;m struggling to find some sort of compromise between reality and the D&D xp system. Part of that evolved into a "practice makes perfect" idea - do something correctly, and you improve the proper skills through repetition of right application.

I don&#39;t know - I&#39;m still working on a happier solution. Maybe in the end the looser role-playing awards do work better. Must ponder this...
Osprey

[Birthright-L]

> I agree with the principle that greater challenge equals greater reward, only I don`t think the single roll of a d20 adequately represents a PC overcoming a challenge. I think intelligent approaches to a challenging problem are worthy of great reward, yet such a system rewards the foolish risk-taker who gets lucky. Is this the character who deserves to level up?

>

> Great challenges can be overcome in seemingly effortless ways by the proper application of strategy and technique. But is nothing learned, no skills improved or refined through such an approach?

>

> In truth, failure often teaches as much as (or more than) success. Unfortunately, D&D doesn`t operate on this principle, so I`m struggling to find some sort of compromise between reality and the D&D xp system. Part of that evolved into a "practice makes perfect" idea - do something correctly, and you improve the proper skills through repetition of right application.

>

> I don`t know - I`m still working on a happier solution. Maybe in the end the looser role-playing awards do work better. Must ponder this...

> Osprey





I agree with Irdegman`s analysis of the way experience works in this case,

though I also agree with the quoted statements above. What your looking for

is some kind of personal advancement that ties at the domain level. That`s

great, but it`s not necessarily Exp (although it can be). Personally, I see

bloodline as a far more significant value for personal advancement at the

domain level.



I`ve already suggested one method I used in an old campaign for advancing a

regent`s level without bothering with experience awards at all. Experience

is a very specific system that awards a particular behavior in a particular

way, that doesn`t lend itself very well to domain actions.



Two other options I was going to use for a campaign I was setting up (but I

never got around to it because that campaign was scapped) were what I termed

the Quest and Agenda methods.



The Quest method basically evolved from my disatisfaction from the way my

first attempt at a PbeM ran. Everyone did their own thing in a sort of

haphazard fashion, some people never interacted with others, and everyone

was off on their own little mini-games. Thus, I realized, as cool as it is,

it`s not a good idea to have a campaign without a plot no matter how well

its game mechancis may lend itself out. Thus, I decided to incorporate the

Quest system which basically just set certain "story goals" for the campaign

on a list. When these goals are met, the player gets an Exp and RP award.

This list would follow a certain natural theme, and the idea was that if

they reacted to the first couple of major events, and performed domain

actions that followed up on those events logically, the final result would

be a personal battle between a source mage and the regents wherein they

would get a chance to use all those Exp they`ve been collecting.



The Agenda method was basically inspired from a game called Paranoia, and I

like this one best but it`s the least thoughtout at the moment. Basically,

every domain has an agenda that`s generated along with the domain, and by

following that agenda and keeping it secret from others the character gains

certain agenda awards and Exp. (The agenda awards were just colorful badges

like "bodyguards," "a festival," or the PC favorite, "new toys!" These

agenda awards would be broken up into primary, secondary, and tertiary, and

would usually involve preventing other regents` particular actions (and

perhaps Agendas) rather than performing certain actions. I`ve also

considered Minor Agendas that PCs could work toward secretly, and announce

after they`ve accomplished it for a gobble of RP, military units, or

automatic Rule actions. I should get back to developing this system. I

recall really liking it when I was first brainstorming it...



-Lord Rahvin

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by Osprey@Aug 24 2003, 06:01 PM

I agree with the principle that greater challenge equals greater reward, only I don&#39;t think the single roll of a d20 adequately represents a PC overcoming a challenge. I think intelligent approaches to a challenging problem are worthy of great reward, yet such a system rewards the foolish risk-taker who gets lucky. Is this the character who deserves to level up?

Great challenges can be overcome in seemingly effortless ways by the proper application of strategy and technique. But is nothing learned, no skills improved or refined through such an approach?

In truth, failure often teaches as much as (or more than) success. Unfortunately, D&D doesn&#39;t operate on this principle, so I&#39;m struggling to find some sort of compromise between reality and the D&D xp system. Part of that evolved into a "practice makes perfect" idea - do something correctly, and you improve the proper skills through repetition of right application.

I don&#39;t know - I&#39;m still working on a happier solution. Maybe in the end the looser role-playing awards do work better. Must ponder this...
Osprey
I generally concur with this. I hate having something decided by a single die roll and have personally never awarded experience points for domain actions.

In Chap 5, pg 101 there are some suggestions for gaining regency due to domain actions. This might be closer to what Lord Rahvin is talking about and closer to something you might like.

Regardless of our opinions on things being decided by a single die roll, the core mechanics inevitably make this a reality. Many combats (especially between lower level combatants) are in effect decided by a single die roll. A critical hit can destroy an opponent.

Also what you are talking about in way of measuring the inventiveness of the player&#39;s solution to a problem is totally a DM subjective assessment. IMO any "rules" written to address this would in effect be hamstringing DMs and discourage DMs using their own "best" judgement in situations such as you are addressing.

I believe that in this case less specific rules are actually better.

[geeman]

Here are some rough notes regarding converting domain level into adventures

and, by extrapolation, a way of determining the XP awards for domain

actions. This is part of a larger (and largely inchoate) system of

converting domain actions to adventures, but for the purpose of this

discussion these are the salient points.



What is a Domain Action?



IMO the domain level of play is an extrapolation on the standard adventure

level of play. It`s a form of "game mechanical shorthand" if you will in

which the actions and assets of the adventure level are compiled into a

system of game mechanics and statistics. Interaction between the two

levels of play needn`t exist, but combining them in the long run makes for

a better overall system. Using the domain rules one can fill out and

inspire adventure level activities and the effects of adventure level

activities can be portrayed in the overall domain system.



When it comes to XP awards for domain actions I`m a big proponent of

role-playing out the domain actions, but it is nice to have the domain

level rules around for those cases when the DM doesn`t have a particular

thing in mind for an adventure level of activity, or when one is resolving

actions quickly for neighboring realms or other NPCs. It also allows us to

reflect many of the advantages and results of adventures into a broader,

more inclusive system of action and effect, allowing for what is a natural

extension of one of the basic implications behind many adventures--how will

the results of this adventure actually effect the world at large? In the

domain level of play we often have our answer to that question: a new

holding is established or one becomes contested, GB go missing from the

treasury, the population level of a province increases, the bandits that

threatened a region are dealt with, etc. Furthermore, if we can

extrapolate the domain actions into adventures and vice versa then we can

develop a set of guidelines for adventure design and development that will

cross over between the two levels of play.



Within such a context, I`d suggest that for the purposes of XP awards for

domain actions what we need is a system of converting domain actions into

adventure level play and then such a system can be "backward engineered"

into a system of XP awards for domain actions. We have a few good examples

of exactly how one might do that sort of thing with the LotHK text (IMO the

best of the BR supplements) but that is for random events as well as being

something that was developed without much of an eye towards the

relationship between the adventure level of play and the domain level. It

was not, of course, developed with the system of EL and CR that exists now

in 3e either, which is one of the aspects of the system that can have a lot

of use for our purposes.



So what does a domain action represent? First of all, it represents a

month`s worth of activities and effort on the part of the regent, the

population that he administrates, his staff and other associated

characters. For the purpose of simplicity and parity with the way the

domain level breaks time up into domain turns, action round and war moves,

I`d suggest that for our purposes we can convert the four weeks of time of

a domain action down into weeks (war moves) for the purpose of determining

how to convert to encounters and adventures.



Converting Domain Actions to Adventures



A domain action represents a month of activities, but it is not the only

activity that goes on during that period of time. The regent must still

administrate his domain on a day-to-day basis, dealing with those constant

issues that anyone in a position of authority must address. The domain

action itself merely represents an area of concentration during that

period, not the whole of the regent`s time. One of the things that RPGs

often do is assume that certain activities happen automatically. We do not

role-play PCs washing their clothes, cooking their food, polishing their

armor and weapons or engaging in most of the mundane activities of life

except on those occasions where it segues into an encounter or where the

player has some particular concept in mind. Just to shake things up DM

might say, "While polishing your armor you are approached by a group of

unsavory looking men" in order to arrange an encounter with the PCs in

which their equipment or other stats are not as high as normal. Similarly,

a player might have a character who was an excellent chef and mention that

fact when cooking out of doors. In general, however, such things are

exceptions rather than the rule. Most mundane activities are assumed.



When it comes to domain level activities, I`d suggest that the same is

true. Most of the administrative and mundane activities of controlling a

domain are assumed, and unless the DM or players want to engage in them for

some reason they can be ignored. How much of a regent`s time do they

take? That`s quite debatable, but for the sake of simplicity, I`d suggest

they take half the time of the regent. The domain action itself would then

represent taking three or four days a week.



In D&D "an adventure" really has no time limit. One assumes it is a

relatively brief amount of time that is extended into longer amounts of

time to form "a campaign" but adventures are not themselves set to a

stopwatch. In 3e, however, it is suggested that the "average" adventure is

comprised of four encounters of CR equal to the party level. I`d suggest

that this can work well into the above break down of the amount of

activities involved in a domain action. Since an "average" action is

equivalent to roughly the same amount of encounters that occur in a week of

activities performed as part of a domain action we can associate the two

easily, making a domain action equivalent to what the DMG suggests is four

adventures at the adventure level of play comprised of four different main

encounters.



While there is no time limitation on the sequence of those encounters, it

would appear to be generally assumed that they are going to occur

sequentially, so that PCs may not rest up or otherwise rejuvenate between

encounters. At the adventure level of play there is a time restriction,

but the time is spread out over a greater amount of time. Four encounters

per week means the PCs have a day between encounters in order to heal,

research, etc. In order to deal with this issue, I`d suggest that any

encounter that isn`t ultimately resolved in a "single sitting" be

considered a failure for the purpose of the overall success of the domain

action. (See Below)



This only gets us half way to our goal, however, because we also need to

address the issue of CR in order to find the actual amount of XP that would

be awarded for such an adventure. D&D normally assumes that encounters are

going to be scaled to the party level of the PCs. The DMG describes these

as "tailored" encounters (pp 100-101) and provides guidelines for

developing them. I`d suggest that for our purposes, however, we should not

assume that to be the case. At the adventure level of play one has a broad

range of character levels. It would make sense to preserve the interaction

of low level PCs with higher level ones and vice versa, since that`s a

basic aspect of the BR domain level. We can either tailor encounters or

employ a "status quo" set of encounters, but in several ways the system of

encounters used to reflect the particulars of a domain action need not

abide by the strictness of the EL system as presented in the DMG. For one

things many of the encounters need not be of the hack `n slash variety that

standard D&D seems to assume. A diplomatic encounter can represent widely

different CR values than a stand up fight. The results of the encounter

might not be all that different since the total modifiers of a high ranking

character versus a low ranking character could make the opposed checks

pretty much a foregone conclusion, but where the DMG assumes that 25% of a

party`s resources are going to be used up in such an encounter than isn`t

the case for our purposes. Similarly, the encounter can be role-played out

rather than the result of rolls, so in general things may not be as unequal

as they would normally be in a typical EL-minded encounter.



When determining the encounters that comprise the adventure level portrayal

of a domain action it`s important to consider the difficulty of the domain

action itself. More difficult domain actions will represent higher CR

values in the encounters involved, or might be used to justify more than

the "average" either the four encounters per adventure or the four

adventures per domain turn estimate. If a typical domain action is DC 15

then we can extrapolate from that "average" encounters. Now, if we`re

creating tailored encounters that means a grand total of sixteen encounters

of CR equal to the party level.



The standard range of encounters for D&D is encounters with EL within four

levels of the PCs. We can use that number to shift the CR values of the

encoutners when creating an adventure to represent the activities of a

domain action. Every 2 points of difference in the success number results

in a 1 level increase or decrease in the EL of the encounters it

inspires. That is, a domain action with a success number of 20 would have

encounters that were equal to the party level +2, while a domain action

with a success number of 5 (pretty easy) would have an EL of party level -5.



After determining the EL of the encounters the DM can assign characters to

the sixteen encounters of the adventure.



Determining Success of Domain Actions from Adventure Results



Success at the adventure level can be converted to the result of a die roll

to determine success on a domain action by counting each successful

encounter as 1 point. Since there are an average of 16 encounters in a

domain action that means a "die roll" of 16 is possible on a typical

adventured out domain action.



As with typical domain actions a player should announce the number of RP

spent on the action. Those domain actions that have success numbers higher

than 16 will require spending RP to assure their success.



Assigning XP Awards to Domain Actions



Not all those encounters need necessarily be of the type that will grant

normal XP awards nor should we assume that even if the domain action is

successful that every encounter was a success, so the regent shouldn`t

necessarily get XP for all those encounters (more on that later.) After

determining what the average number of encounters and the average CR of

those encounters might be we are ready to assign XP. There are, however, a

couple of factors we need to consider for how many XP should actually be

granted. The first is success. Since the average domain action represents

sixteen encounter we cannot assume that every encounter is a success. The

second factor is how many of those encounters are of the type that will

grant XP. Now, I`m of the opinion that XP should be granted in one form or

another whether an encounter is combat oriented or story oriented, but some

encounters may wind up being neither. So for each of these conditions, I`d

suggest that we should simply half the number of encounters, so that each

domain action results in four encounters that grant XP. That might seem a

bit low, but we should also take into consideration that we`re using the

domain level as a short hand for what would normally be adventures in

tradition D&D. If one wanted to grant more experience, however, it would

be easy to assign a different number to the "encounters that grant an XP

award" number.



In a tailored system of adventure design for a group of PCs with a party

level of 8, the average domain action would, therefore, result in four CR 8

XP awards or 9,600 XP to be split amongst the party. If the XP award is

going to go to a single regent one should bear in mind that the CR system

assumes four PCs. If using tailored encounters the CRs would be scaled

down by -2 for a single PC. That would result in 4,800 XP being awarded to

the regent.



Now, I should note that IMC I grant XP at a rate of about 1/3 that of the

DMG`s Table 7-1. The XP awards are actually 1/4 those on that table, but I

also grant story awards based on the overall activities of the players, so

it winds up being more like 1/3 of the standard awards for D&D. For the

above awards I would give out 3,200 XP to the group and 1,600 to an

individual level 8 regent.



Gary

[doom]

Green Knights sez:

> In my mind it really doesn`t matter WHY something made it into the BR

> setting, only that it did. I`m highly sceptical about changing basic

> stuff, and actually not caring WHY it is changed (whether to be more

> 3Eish or to fit someones canception of how the writers REALLY intended

> BR to be).

[snip, reordered]

> To me, the only worthwile BRCS

> is one that stays true to the original. And I`m not talking about the

> typos, the inconsistencies or the plain crappy stuff. I`m talking about

> the important stuff, the things that gave flavor to the world of BR.



I think that you`ll find that most people agree with the general

principles that you espouse. The devil is in the details. There are so

many points where the dividing line between BR/2e are not easy to

draw. I`ll comment on some of your examples to demonstrate my POV.



> Take healing magic for example; In BR, only clerics can heal. There is

> nothing more to say on the subject. If some players don`t like this, too

> bad, they can make their own house rules. If DnD 3E gives healing magic

> to bards, change it, because they do not in BR.



Tricky. It is also true that in BR, only clerics of Nesire, Ruornil,

Sera, and Kriesah could Raise Dead. [If I recall my major Necromantic

sphere access correctly]. Should the same be true when playing 3e? If

so, where do you draw the line? Should priests of gods w/o major

access to the Healing sphere not be able to cast Heal? What about new

spells with no 2e equivalent (or visa-versa, e.g. Nap?).



If you are willing to allow some clerics to cast Heal or Raise Dead or

new 3e spells when they could not before (and I would argue that if you

want to play 3e that you must) is that any more/less of a change than

allowing Bards to cast healing magic? In regards to magic, 3e changes

are pervasive. I don`t think that a simple solution such as "don`t

give bards healing spells" is a reasoned solution. If you play 3e,

some changes pretty much have to be accepted - to do otherwise would be

diverge from the d20 system beyond the scope of a d20 BRCS project. I

would argue, contrary-wise, that to play BR with the same magic

restrictions/possibilities envisioned in the original release that it

would be best to do so in 2e (a fine and workable system for such a

goal).



> Bloodlines are an add-on system, so it stays that way. Bloodlines come

> in tainted, minor, major, great, and true variants. There are minor,

> major and great blood abilities.



True.. and yet... Magic items were an "add-on system" in 2e as well.

Yet, in 3e, DMs are provided with base values for each item to help

gauge the "appropriate" equipment-level for a party of PCs. The

entire XP/CR system is affected by any "unaccounted" for changes

in party level. 2e also recommended a 10% XP bonus for unblooded

characters. Would you recommend that this remain unchanged as well?

If so, I would point out that a 10% bonus has a different impact

when XP breakpoints for level increase geometrically rather than

exponentially. These are not straight-forward issues, and are

highly inter-related in 3e. 3e is not forgiving regarding

increases in character power without an accounting. This

mandates, IMHO, considerable change in the bloodline system.



Of course, that is just my .0001 GB.



- Doom

[Green Knight]

I couldn&#39;t disagree more...well that&#39;s not true I supporse, but it probably caught people&#39;s attention. B)

I don&#39;t think everybody agrees with my general principle of "staying true to the setting". I think that is one of the core issues here. Pepole have wildly different views as to what is true to the setting. Some difference of opinion is to be expected, but when reading BR-L mails I get the distinct impression that some members are looking for a "fix" instead of an update/compilation. When you start arguing that "this is what the writers intended" or "I don&#39;t think this is BR, it was only made that way because of 2E limitations" I think we&#39;re of on the wrong track. We need to let go of our own personal preferences, and actually pick up the books and READ what they say. I catch myself wishing up stuff all the time, all the while I could just look up the reference in one of the BR books. :unsure:

Now, that the devil is in the details, with that I can agree. Yet here too do I sense a lack of direction - I for one have no idea as to the guiding principles behing the BRCS (I made this same point a while back). Is it to make BR into 3E, BR into a D20 system game, is it a compilation, a fix or something in between? If we knew, the details could be worked out. :blink:

From my last post, it must seem that I&#39;m all for keeping every little thing from 2E and transplanting it into the BRCS. In a way, I am. I would love to just kick out the stupid domains (BR has domains already) and make a separate spell list for each type of cleric, and give them special abilities as well... :ph34r:

However, this may be a little too much in terms of work, so I envision that some other approach must be taken. Which leads me to a 3E conversion that stays relatively true to 3E DnD (to keep down the workload, and make the game more accessible to other DnD players). Indeed, I have run several good BR games with no conversion of the (character) rules at all (save bloodlines which were handled by bonuses to skill, bonus feats, and spell-like abiliites handed out by the DM). <_<

Things that was never part of any core edition of DnD (most notably bloodlines, magic items were not unique to BR, maybe I should have not used "add-on" but rather "unique add-on") needs to be handled. I&#39;m sure there are different ways to do this, but I have my own (very strong) personal preference which I won&#39;t restate again. :angry:

But we can still keep the good stuff, the stuff that made BR what is was. I know that otehr 2E gods also had their spheres, but the fact that only some gods could cast spells was very important to my BR games. The "Priests of Belinik" sidebar with their special powers (and lack of domains) and the Unique spell lists for BR clerics would be equally appreciated. :D

I realize that we will still argue onto the last days, but hise were my silver pennies. :blink:

Btw: I think the devil is really in the SMALL details - such as what 3E spells get included in the Priests of Belinik spell list... :P

Cheers
Bjørn

[Green Knight]

...and no, there are logic in my use of smilies. I just thought they looked cool (I rarely use the message boards) and decided to include some...they&#39;re there for a reason right?

:D

[Green Knight]

Originally posted by doom@Aug 26 2003, 04:12 AM
2e also recommended a 10% XP bonus for unblooded

characters. Would you recommend that this remain unchanged as well?

If so, I would point out that a 10% bonus has a different impact

when XP breakpoints for level increase geometrically rather than

exponentially.
If you want bloodlines with power, but are unwilling to use level adjustments, giving out a +10% XP bonus to commoner might not be a bad idea. It is certainly more powerful in 3E (but not very unbalancing), but it was pretty meaningless in 2E.

That said, I don&#39;t think that is the way to go. There were other modifiers to XP in 2E, but that mechanic was removed altogether, and it seems to me quite artificial to keep it (but not so bad as to make it impossible to keep it).

I think the main point here must be that scions are more powerful, and that issue needs to be adressed. Make up a core rule for this, my preferences runs towards level adjustments, and put the rest in sidebars or appendixes..."the Scion of Anduiras class", "Bloodlines without level adjustments" and whatnot.

Cheers
Bjørn

[ConjurerDragon]

Green Knight schrieb:



>This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.

> You can view the entire thread at:

> http://www.birthright.net/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=36&t=1876

> Green Knight wrote:

>
2e also recommended a 10% XP bonus for unblooded<>

> characters. Would you recommend that this remain unchanged as well?<>

> If so, I would point out that a 10% bonus has a different impact<>

> when XP breakpoints for level increase geometrically rather than<>

> exponentially.

> If you want bloodlines with power, but are unwilling to use level adjustments, giving out a +10% XP bonus to commoner might not be a bad idea. It is certainly more powerful in 3E (but not very unbalancing), but it was pretty meaningless in 2E.

> That said, I don`t think that is the way to go. There were other modifiers to XP in 2E, but that mechanic was removed altogether, and it seems to me quite artificial to keep it (but not so bad as to make it impossible to keep it).

> I think the main point here must be that scions are more powerful, and that issue needs to be adressed. Make up a core rule for this, my preferences runs towards level adjustments, and put the rest in sidebars or appendixes..."the Scion of Anduiras class", "Bloodlines without level adjustments" and whatnot.

> Cheers

> Bjørn

>

>

Mmm, for something completely different:

Make blooded characters the norm for the BR setting so that they need no

ECL.

Unblooded characters then should AUTOMATICALLY earn more XP as they face

greater challenges compared to their abilitys :-)

bye

Michael

[ryancaveney]

On Tue, 26 Aug 2003, Green Knight wrote:



> I don`t think everybody agrees with my general principle of "staying

> true to the setting". I think that is one of the core issues here.

> People have wildly different views as to what is true to the setting.



Which means everyone really can agree with "being true to the setting" in

*general*, even though they disagree with your *specific* idea of what the

setting "truly" is about.



> Some difference of opinion is to be expected, but when reading BR-L

> mails I get the distinct impression that some members are looking for

> a "fix" instead of an update/compilation.



Of course! This list has always been about discussing ways to tinker with

BR to make it "better", and there have always been strenuous disagreements

about what "better" would be; I see no reason it should change now. I

mean, really, since the project amounts to "rewrite the BR rules", I see

no reason to expect us not to try to toss in every house rule we`ve ever

thought of! I know there are those who argue for minimal change, and I`ve

even sometimes been one, but even then we can never agree on what such a

minimal change would be (in part because half that group wants to minimize

the total change to BR, and the other half to minimize the change to 3e;

and then within those groups, there are disagreements over what BR and 3e

"really are", and which changes to either are bigger than others). I see

no reason to expect this group to ever come up with a final version that

really pleases anyone except its authors, and maybe not even them.

Consensus is just not a viable possibility. Hence I really don`t care

very much about what the "official" end-product is -- well, I do want it

to be as good as possible so that people coming late to BR can have

something decent to get themselves started, but I never had any intention

of using it myself as-is; neither, it seems, do many of the most prolific

posters. As should be quite clear by now, my own campaign, and that of

many (if not most) of the major contributors to the list have such a large

and well-loved collection of variant interpretations and house rules that

the divergence is really too great for ideas to be readily cross-adaptable.



> When you start arguing that "this is what the writers intended" or "I

> don`t think this is BR, it was only made that way because of 2E

> limitations" I think we`re of on the wrong track.



Sadly, I don`t think there is any better track. True objectivity is an

attractive delusion, but a delusion nonetheless. There will always be

some reading of the tea leaves involved in any exegesis of the rules.



> We need to let go of our own personal preferences, and actually pick

> up the books and READ what they say. I catch myself wishing up stuff

> all the time, all the while I could just look up the reference in one

> of the BR books.



But the references mean different things to different people. Our

personal preferences strongly influence what we read the books as saying.

As we established years ago, there is NO campaign that does not use at

least some house rules, in part because it is not equally clear to all

people exactly what the rules "actually say". There have long been deep

divisions over what the words in the rulebooks mean. It is impossible to

escape making subjective interpretations: you need to make them even to

read the rules, and many more arise during play. There is a lot of text

in the books, and some of it seems to clash with other parts (and, again,

of course, there are disagreements about which bits are discordant or

harmonious with any given snippet); there are a few cases than those where

interpretive choices are required, but many more where they just happen --

each person chooses to emphasize certain aspects of the setting and

deemphasize others. And really, whyever not? After all, it`s just a

game. =) For many of us, changing things in the setting and the rules is

a significant part of the fun. We come here to share ideas with fellow

tinkerers. Personally, I`m quite tired of all the focus on 3e. Sure, it

ought to be one of the threads, but there ought to be lots more besides,

and no suggestion about gaming in Cerilia using any system or using BR

realm management rules in any setting should ever be considered off-topic.

Even when 3e is mentioned, I want to hear *every* idea, *especially* the

strange ones.



> I sense a lack of direction - I for one have no idea as to the guiding

> principles behing the BRCS (I made this same point a while back). Is

> it to make BR into 3E, BR into a D20 system game, is it a compilation,

> a fix or something in between?



There are differing answers to that question, too -- and I don`t think

those are likely to ever be resolved, either. Well, except as the

directionless all-of-the-above mismash you`re already reading on the

list. =)



> From my last post, it must seem that I`m all for keeping every little

> thing from 2E and transplanting it into the BRCS. In a way, I am.

> However, [...] I envision [...] a 3E conversion that stays relatively

> true to 3E DnD (to keep down the workload, and make the game more

> accessible to other DnD players).



So you can`t decide either. =) As I`m sure you`ve noticed, 2e BR and core

3e have a large number of significant differences; therefore it is just

not possible to stay particularly true to both. Oh well.



> I`m sure there are different ways to do this, but I have my own (very

> strong) personal preference which I won`t restate again. :angry: But

> we can still keep the good stuff, the stuff that made BR what is was.



But that`s exactly the problem! Everyone has a different, very strong

personal preference about what BR was and what made it that way! I think

you think you`re trying to be a voice of reason in all this, but it seems

to me that you are just as polarized as I or anyone else. Subjectivity is

simply inescapable.



> I know that other 2E gods also had their spheres, but the fact that

> only some gods could cast spells was very important to my BR games.

> The "Priests of Belinik" sidebar with their special powers (and lack

> of domains) and the Unique spell lists for BR clerics would be equally

> appreciated.



I very much agree here, as I know others do (Mr. Gauck, for one), though

no doubt others disagree. If I ever do get around to using 3e rules to

run a BR game (which looks steadily less likely), I will take this

approach, and have *no* standard PHB clerics. Unique spell lists for

every religion, huzzah!





Ryan Caveney

[kgauck]

----- Original Message -----

From: "Ryan B. Caveney" <ryanb@CYBERCOM.NET>

Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2003 11:27 AM





> But the references mean different things to different people. Our

> personal preferences strongly influence what we read the books as saying.

> As we established years ago, there is NO campaign that does not use at

> least some house rules, in part because it is not equally clear to all

> people exactly what the rules "actually say".



I`m going to jump off from this statement and add that I think the designers

were intentionaly vague in a lot of places so that a big BR tent could be

established. One of the results of this is that there is wide disagreement

about what is going on in BR. Narrow interpreations are bound to disappoint

most readers for this reason.



Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

[Osprey]

I`m going to jump off from this statement and add that I think the designers
were intentionaly vague in a lot of places so that a big BR tent could be
established. One of the results of this is that there is wide disagreement
about what is going on in BR. Narrow interpreations are bound to disappoint
most readers for this reason.

Kenneth Gauck


Which is where a core system with variant rules comes into play. I think it a mistake to treat the BRCS project as an authority on the BR world, and rather focus on it as a set of core mechanical rules around which a DM and players can build their preferred version of Cerilia.

The variants (which were getting discussed as archives/e-zines, etc. in the Royal Library) seem to be the place where we (the veteran fans and DM&#39;s of Birthright) can contribute our individual visions and ideas that can serve as idea generators and setting possibilities for BR gamers, new and old alike.

Thus, it seems reasonable to keep the "deviant" variant rules as variants, but not ditch them altogether. I think the contributors to this page have a goldmine of creative, interesting ideas that open-minded DM&#39;s can consider and take advantage of so long as we put it out there in the first place. Personally, I&#39;m looking forward to a more structured way to contribute solid world-building or alternative ideas for BR, rather than at random points in threads that will eventually get left behind and forgotten. But neither would I get too insistent that the original material be changed too drastically in a core BRCS book.

Osprey

[geeman]

At 09:38 AM 8/26/2003 +0200, Green Knight wrote:



>Some difference of opinion is to be expected, but when reading BR-L mails

>I get the distinct impression that some members are looking for a

>"fix" instead of an update/compilation.



When it comes to this particular issue I, for one, am content to take

advantage of an update in order to fix things. As has been noted there are

certain things in the setting that the writers (would appear to) have left

vague intentionally. Intrinsic to the nature of that thinking,

unfortunately, is that it makes it difficult to intuit which aspects they

intentionally blurred and which they just didn`t address--and I`m pretty

confident in suggesting that there`s probably more of the latter than the

former. The Rulebook is, after all only a 96 page text--with some rather

odd page design formatting at that--which makes it a pretty slim volume to

comprise the things that vary in all campaign settings; races, character

class, equipment, etc. plus the entirely new system of PC rulership,

domains, realm spells, large scale warfare, as well as the pantheon of the

setting and general guidelines for DMs. Those expansion texts on

particular subjects like the "Book of..." texts often elaborate on

particular subjects, and illustrate that many of them can and often should

have additional attention, but in many cases there appears to be a lack of

editorial control over many of the themes and campaign ideas expressed in

those texts, so they often wind up muddling than clarifying things. They

raise at least as many questions as they answer in a way that is either

intentionally vague or (more likely IMO) the product of an inconsistency in

the setting`s relationship to game mechanics.



Aside from any issues with the vagaries of the original system (be they

intentional or incidental) one of the purposes in an update is to address

conflicts, correct mistakes and otherwise fix problems with previous

editions of the material. Making a conversion that doesn`t address some of

the problems seems like a waste of an opportunity.



> From my last post, it must seem that I`m all for keeping every little

> thing from 2E and transplanting it into the BRCS. In a way, I am. I would

> love to just kick out the stupid domains (BR has domains already) and

> make a separate spell list for each type of cleric, and give them special

> abilities as well... :ph34r:



This is a good example of how I think my view is "extreme" compared to that

of people who want to update the setting, but with as little change as

possible from either the original 2e rules set or the 3e rules set. I`d

prefer to change them both with no more provocation than the most casual

campaign thematic material. I don`t see BR as being 2e any more than it is

3e or even that it need be D&D. Several folks have abandoned D&D or even

D20 entirely in order to play their BR campaigns, and while I wouldn`t go

as far as that myself (D20 seems to have more than enough flexibility to

reflect BR`s dynamics) I don`t feel any obligation to make BR fit into an

extant set of rules. Rather, I want a set of rules to fit BR`s

uniqueness. Where a system of rules contains material that doesn`t

adequately cover a theme of the setting they should either be changed or

ignored without a second thought.



When it comes to portraying the differences between the priests of

Cerilia`s pantheon, I would prefer an entirely different character class

for each aspect of priesthood rather than just clerics with different spell

lists. Fitting the broad scope of differences between the Cerilian gods

using only 2e specialty priest function or the 3e cleric class is an

example of trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. It would, I

think, more accurately reflect the original ideas behind several of the

religions if they were entirely divorced not just from the 2e or 3e spell

lists, but from the entire cleric character class. Priests of Haelyn

should be as different from priests of Laerme as they are from priests of

Erik IMO. If that means different HD, BAB and save progressions, spells

lists, etc. then I`m all for it. It`s never particularly made sense to me

that priests of the more war-like deities have the same combat stats as,

say, priests of Laerme.



>However, this may be a little too much in terms of work, so I envision

>that some other approach must be taken. Which leads me to a 3E conversion

>that stays relatively true to 3E DnD (to keep down the workload, and make

>the game more accessible to other DnD players).



Yes, work load is definitely a problem and IMO one of the better

rationalizations for making an update of BR more like 3e if it means

getting the material out into the world where it can be tweaked at the will

of the user community.



There are a couple of ways of compiling this kind of stuff that isn`t as

amazingly time consuming as others. For instance, one needn`t necessarily

include all the color text that is traditional with each of the character

class descriptions. In reality only a small fraction of that text has any

relevance. A more "bare bones" approach to some of the actual game

mechanical stuff might be more sensible.



Gary

[ConjurerDragon]

Ryan B. Caveney schrieb:



>On Tue, 26 Aug 2003, Green Knight wrote:

>

>I know that other 2E gods also had their spheres, but the fact that

>

>only some gods could cast spells was very important to my BR games.

>

>

>>The "Priests of Belinik" sidebar with their special powers (and lack

>>of domains) and the Unique spell lists for BR clerics would be equally

>>appreciated.

>>

>>

>I very much agree here, as I know others do (Mr. Gauck, for one), though

>no doubt others disagree. If I ever do get around to using 3e rules to

>run a BR game (which looks steadily less likely), I will take this

>approach, and have *no* standard PHB clerics. Unique spell lists for

>every religion, huzzah!

>Ryan Caveney

>

>

While I wholeheartedly agree with you that priest in BR should not be

able to cast every spell and that it was a very interesting twist to

have clerics of Haelyn not able to use true seeing or major healing

spells and had to rely on clerics of Nesirie for this, I find it a lot

of work to write one unique spelllist for every god of BR, in which at

least partly the same spells appear again and again.



Would it not be easier to give all BR priests access to divine spells

which no domain associated (e.g. Bless) and to those spells that are on

the divine list usable by clerics and have a domain that is their god is

able to grant (e.g. Aid could be cast by ANY core 3E PHB cleric, but in

this variant only by those whose god can grant the Good domain) and to

those spells from their 2 chosen domains?



In this way for example a cleric of Belink who can´t grant the Good or

Luck domain would never be able to cast Aid,

and using the domain list from the BRCS p. 71 no cleric except that of

Nesirie could cast Healing...

bye

Michael

[Osprey]

While I wholeheartedly agree with you that priest in BR should not be able to cast every spell and that it was a very interesting twist to have clerics of Haelyn not able to use true seeing or major healing spells and had to rely on clerics of Nesirie for this, I find it a lot of work to write one unique spelllist for every god of BR, in which at
least partly the same spells appear again and again.

Would it not be easier to give all BR priests access to divine spells which no domain associated (e.g. Bless) and to those spells that are on the divine list usable by clerics and have a domain that is their god is able to grant (e.g. Aid could be cast by ANY core 3E PHB cleric, but in
this variant only by those whose god can grant the Good domain) and to those spells from their 2 chosen domains?

In this way for example a cleric of Belink who can´t grant the Good or Luck domain would never be able to cast Aid,
and using the domain list from the BRCS p. 71 no cleric except that of Nesirie could cast Healing...

While full of flavor, unfortunately, this approach powers down priests by dramatically pruning their spell lists. Is the complaint that 3e clerics are too broadly powerful?

My recommendation would be to come up with a kind of clerical version of the specialist, much like exists for wizards. That&#39;s really what 2e priests were anyways.

The difference is to make the clerics of a deity particularly good at one area, but prohibit them from opposed areas.

The 3e mechanic of Domains was supposed to replace the 2e Deity-specific spell lists. Unfortunately, it just gave clerics bonus spells each level without forbidding them any spells.

If you like the old stuff, you could tinker with powering up the cleric domains in 3e (+1 caster level is a good start) while prohibiting certain spell groups (Healing, Necromancy, etc.).

Personally, it makes more sense to me to get more specialized as clerics go to higher level magic. Low-level healing spells, at least from a 3e perspective, are fairly commonly available (and yes, I know this pisses off the traditionalists who loved how rare and exclusive healing was in old BR ;) ). Following the current trends, then, it would make sense to allow common Cure spells to all clerics, while making the more specialized and high-power stuff exclusive (such as Neutralize Poison, Restoration, Raise Dead, Heal & Mass Heal, etc. being limited to Neserie).


When it comes to portraying the differences between the priests of Cerilia`s pantheon, I would prefer an entirely different character class for each aspect of priesthood rather than just clerics with different spell
lists. Fitting the broad scope of differences between the Cerilian gods using only 2e specialty priest function or the 3e cleric class is an example of trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. It would, I think, more accurately reflect the original ideas behind several of the religions if they were entirely divorced not just from the 2e or 3e spell
lists, but from the entire cleric character class. Priests of Haelyn should be as different from priests of Laerme as they are from priests of Erik IMO. If that means different HD, BAB and save progressions, spells lists, etc. then I`m all for it. It`s never particularly made sense to me that priests of the more war-like deities have the same combat stats as, say, priests of Laerme.
(G-Man)

3e supposedly handles this issue with multiclassing and prestige classes. A Priest of Haelyn can either multiclass as a Fighter/Cleric or take the War Priest prestige class at higher levels. This actually works out pretty well in terms of trading off higher-level clerical magics for increased combat abilities.

My hangup is that it only works out at higher levels, which keeps a lot of lower-level 3e games (and especially low-powered Cerilia) rather 2-dimensional and shallow, and fuels the hunger for higher levels among players simply so their characters can get more interesting AND appropriate to their original concepts.

I find in 3e I&#39;m often letting PC&#39;s start above 1st level simply for the ability to more flexibly design an interesting character concept with stats that reflect that concept. It also helps absorb the ECL&#39;s of the blooded templates. ;)

[ryancaveney]

On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, Michael Romes wrote:



> Would it not be easier to give all BR priests access to divine spells

> which no domain associated (e.g. Bless) and to those spells that are

> on the divine list usable by clerics and have a domain that is their

> god is able to grant (e.g. Aid could be cast by ANY core 3E PHB

> cleric, but in this variant only by those whose god can grant the Good

> domain) and to those spells from their 2 chosen domains?



This sort of thing is done in the 2e version as well -- the Sphere of All.

It`s a good idea in principle, but I`d have to check the specific numbers

of spells involved; that is, I think a all-access list defined this way is

going to be too large, and thereby undo much of the intended difference.



> and using the domain list from the BRCS p. 71 no cleric except that of

> Nesirie could cast Healing...



Well, that would pretty much scupper the "humans beat elves via healing

magic" theory, at any rate. ;) That said, I do like the 2e concept of

major and minor access to spheres -- four of the gods (Cuiraecen, Eloele,

Kriesha and Belinik) had only minor access to healing. I think there

should also be an increased casting cost associated with such things. I

like the idea that spheres with minor access should not only be limited in

terms of highest spell level castable, but also in effective spell level

for casting -- for example, have minor access be not only "only cast 1st

to 3rd level spells", but also "expend a spell slot two levels higher".





Ryan Caveney

[geeman]

At 12:48 PM 8/27/2003 -0400, Ryan Caveney wrote:



>This sort of thing is done in the 2e version as well -- the Sphere of All.

>It`s a good idea in principle, but I`d have to check the specific numbers

>of spells involved; that is, I think a all-access list defined this way is

>going to be too large, and thereby undo much of the intended difference.



At the risk of revisiting the "school of magic as category of spell"

debate, would it be possible to break up the divine spells by their

associated schools and listing them into spell lists for divine

spellcasters in the same manner that they are used for arcane

spellcasters? Would such a list of spells serve a practical function for

the purpose of assigning spells to particular priests?



Gary

[RaspK_FOG]

Well, this is something I have thought of and really changed in my campaign (I am designing it for 2 years now; it will be finished some time in the future, but right now I am running other campaigns):
In my campaign, there are no paladins, or even blackguards, there are knights. They, in turn, can receive a template that matches their alignment, with good knights taking a Paladin template, evil knights taking a Blackguard template, and neutral knights taking a Grey Knight template. Knights are always lawful, or they lose their abilities until they receive atonement.
A likewise technique is used with priests (not clerics): each one of them receives a template that suits their deity best, like the Battle Priest, the Cleric, the Mystic (which is more of a reverent father, friar-like figure), the Druid, and even the Cantor; all based on the individual deity&#39;s portfolio.
This of course are ideas that may not work that good in one&#39;s BR campaign, but templates can change things without having to attain levels in any prestige class. On the other hand, you may find this most unsuitable a choice for your campaign, but I particulalry like it for mine.

[Osprey]

I don&#39;t mind templates until they start adding ECl&#39;s. Then it gets frustrating... B)

Osprey

[ryancaveney]

On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, Osprey wrote:



> Michael Romes wrote:

>

> > In this way for example a cleric of Belink who can`t grant the Good

> > or Luck domain would never be able to cast Aid, and using the

> > domain list from the BRCS p. 71 no cleric except that of Nesirie

> > could cast Healing...

>

> While full of flavor, unfortunately, this approach powers down priests

> by dramatically pruning their spell lists. Is the complaint that 3e

> clerics are too broadly powerful?



I have certainly complained that clerics are too powerful, but this

particular complaint is just that they are too broad. In 3e, all clerics

are pretty much identical. Domains and diety`s favored weapon do add a

small amount of flavor, but it is minimal and unsatisfying. 2e specialty

priests were very different from each other, and I have long thought BR

priests should be even more different from each other than that!



> My recommendation would be to come up with a kind of clerical version

> of the specialist, much like exists for wizards. That`s really what

> 2e priests were anyways.



But in terms of exactly how much of the total clerical spell list they

could each cast, they had to give up much more than that. "Specialist"

wizards just aren`t nearly specialized enough to give me the flavor I want

of the religions having *very* different kinds of priests. Personally, I

think that each individual cleric should have access only to about a half

to a third of the whole list available in 3e, plus a few things from the

Sor/Wiz list in their specialty areas (e.g., Cuiraecen`s priests should

most definitely have Lightning Bolt).



> The difference is to make the clerics of a deity particularly good at

> one area, but prohibit them from opposed areas.



Yes, exactly. Even when clerics of different dieties have access to the

same spell, they should cast it differently -- for example, both Haelyn

and Cuiraecen have major access to Elemental (Air), but Cuiraecen`s

priests should be better at any involving lightning. Similarly, both

Sera and Nesirie have major access to Healing, but Nesirie`s priests

should cast the same cure spells for greater effect and/or lesser cost

than than Sera`s. Gods have specialties, so their priests should, too.



> The 3e mechanic of Domains was supposed to replace the 2e

> Deity-specific spell lists. Unfortunately, it just gave clerics

> bonus spells each level without forbidding them any spells.



Yes. The basic idea is sound, but this particular implementation doesn`t

make them different enough, and also makes them too powerful.



> If you like the old stuff, you could tinker with powering up the

> cleric domains in 3e (1 caster level is a good start) while

> prohibiting certain spell groups (Healing, Necromancy, etc.).



Yes, that`s the general plan.



> Personally, it makes more sense to me to get more specialized as

> clerics go to higher level magic. Low-level healing spells, at least

> from a 3e perspective, are fairly commonly available



I also think that what level a spell is should depend on the religion of

the caster. That is, those religions with only minor access to certain

kinds of magic should not only be prohibited from casting the higher-level

spells than priests with major access to the same spheres can, but that

they should also have a more difficult time casting those spells they do

have in common. For example, part of the healing chart might look like:



Belinik Cuiraecen Haelyn Nesirie



Cure Minor 3 2 0 P

Cure Light 4 3 1 0

Cure Moderate 5 4 2 1

Cure Serious P 5 3 2

Heal P P 8 5



Yes, fleshing this out means an awful lot of detail to fill in. However,

I think it helps make priests vastly more interesting characters.



> Gary Foss wrote:

>

> > lists, but from the entire cleric character class. Priests of Haelyn

> > should be as different from priests of Laerme as they are from

> > priests of Erik IMO. If that means different HD, BAB and save

> > progressions, spells lists, etc. then I`m all for it. It`s never

> > particularly made sense to me that priests of the more war-like

> > deities have the same combat stats as, say, priests of Laerme.



Exactly! This was one of the first rule changes I wanted to make many

years ago. I may be able to dig up the exact table I made, but I`m sure

most of you can derive it yourselves. =)



> 3e supposedly handles this issue with multiclassing and prestige

> classes. A Priest of Haelyn can either multiclass as a Fighter/Cleric

> or take the War Priest prestige class at higher levels.



Supposedly, but I don`t think it really works very well.



> This actually works out pretty well in terms of trading off

> higher-level clerical magics for increased combat abilities.



This would make more of an impact if clerical combat abilities weren`t so

darn good already! Also, spellcasters in general lose a great deal by

multiclassing. I still think the best multiclassing rule I`ve ever seen,

which goes a long way towards making spellcasters more balanced, more

interesting, and more in tune with the feel of the setting, is to require

that no more than half of any character`s levels can come from

spellcasting classes. This rule might be enough to fulfill the wish to

make classes truly different, in that we`d pretty much require Eloele`s

priests to be 50/50 cleric/thieves, Haelyn`s to be cleric/aristocrats,

Belinik`s to be fighter/barbarians, etc. The one place this gets a little

fuzzy is with the religions which would naturally multiclass to another

spellcasting class, such as Ruornil`s cleric/wizards and Laerme`s

cleric/bards; I`m sure something could be worked out, but I`m not entirely

sure how yet. Suggestions? One thought I`ve had with bards is to remove

their spellcasting completely, and instead add a few more applications for

the Perform skill. Then normal bards who wanted to cast spells would have

to multiclass as bard/magicians or bard/wizards, and cleric/bard would

work fine, too. BTW, FWIW, this "no more than half" idea is the single

thing most likely to make me try to use 3e in BR. =)



> I find in 3e I`m often letting PC`s start above 1st level simply for

> the ability to more flexibly design an interesting character concept

> with stats that reflect that concept.



I wholeheartedly support starting at higher levels. In my opinion, a

first-level character is an early adolescent just beginning an

apprenticeship, not an adult finishing one. To me, a 1st-level character

is one who has just completed enough basic education to be useful as an

apprentice. Not until they reach 3rd to 5th level are they considered

skilled enough to have a chance of making it on their own, and released

into the world as journeymen; even then they are likely to work for an

older and more skilled master, rather than for themselves. Skill then

increases slowly but steadily up into upper middle age, for any person of

"average" talents and interests. My current draft table relates age to

total character level as follows:



Age Level



12 1

15 2

18 3

21 4

25 5

30 6

35 7

40 8

45 9

50 10



I like this a lot, and would actually use it for everyone: for example, a

50-year old village blacksmith who served a few years in the army as a

youth would be something like a Commoner 2 / Warrior 3 / Expert 5. In the

3e system, it strikes me as by far the most sensible way to give people

good and varied enough skills to make their livings. Easier access to

more flexible and fleshed-out character concepts is another excellent

reason to adopt such an approach. Extrapolating beyond age 50 is a bit

fuzzy, though, since most medieval humans should not really live much

longer than this, or at least ought soon to "retire" from more physically

demanding tasks; in any case the aging brain becomes much less good at

learning new things. Thus I`m happy to stop age-correlated average person

advancement here, or if I were to continue it (perhaps only for

longer-lived races like dwarves) I`d cut the slope in half or more;

short-lived races like goblins might even progress a bit faster (or at

least start earlier -- but then, what is a goblin`s typical lifespan?).

How exactly to fold elves into all of this is much less clear.





Ryan Caveney

[RaspK_FOG]

Well, as for multi-classing, no cleric should never be able to multi-class with another class if that other one has a vastly different attitude than the cleric&#39;s church. For example, a cleric of any church that emphasises on arcane magic (for example, the church of Avani or Ruornil) should also be able to be wizards, sorcerers, magicians, even bards, but not rogues, fighters, and especially barbarians&#33; The opposite should dictate for any church that emphasises on brutal combat and survival of the fittest (like the church of Belinik).

And, Osprey, by templates have nothing to do with ECL. ;)

Anyway, the variant clerics could be included in the book under a "Priest" note or whatever. What needs to be done is deciding how should they be handled, right?

By the way, Ihave to agree... Domains, as they are right now, are simply broken: a wizard has to specialise to get the same number of spells a cleric gets for naught&#33; Not to mention he doesn&#39;t have to pay for his spells (immediate access to them) and most of his spells are not that costy&#33; (Aside from the "occasional" ressurection or true ressurection. :P

[kgauck]

----- Original Message -----

From: "Gary" <geeman@SOFTHOME.NET>

Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2003 6:07 PM





> would it be possible to break up the divine spells by their

> associated schools and listing them into spell lists for divine

> spellcasters in the same manner that they are used for arcane

> spellcasters?



Why not use the 2e lists for this? The conversion really isn`t that hard,

and they were broken up by sphere.



I converted from 3e directly, but I did so with Excel, so I can mix and

match spell lists with ease.



Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

[kgauck]

----- Original Message -----

From: "RaspK_FOG" <brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET>

Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2003 7:36 PM





> Well, as for multi-classing, no cleric should never be able to

> multi-class with another class if that other one has a vastly different

> attitude than the cleric`s church. For example, a cleric of any

> church that emphasises on arcane magic (for example, the church of

> Avani or Ruornil) should also be able to be wizards, sorcerers,

> magicians, even bards, but not rogues, fighters, and especially

> barbarians&#33;



What about either of these gods in inconsistant with rogues, fighters, or

barbarians? Ruornil, as god the secrets and the night, is half of the

aspect of Eloele. A spy who stole secrets by moonlight might well be a

cleric/rogue. The scout who raids at dawn might be a cleric/rogue dedicated

to Avani. Khinasi troops are typically light and fast, and that suggests a

rogue as much as a fighter. Avani would smile on the many skills aquired by

a rogue. Fighting the shadow is best done by fighter/clerics of both gods,

though more so of the followers of Ruornol who are less likely to organize.

Barbarians can`t worship son or moon?



The god influences how to class is played, the class doesn`t determine which

god is worshiped.



Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

[geeman]

At 08:24 PM 8/28/2003 -0500, Kenneth Gauck wrote:



> > would it be possible to break up the divine spells by their

> > associated schools and listing them into spell lists for divine

> > spellcasters in the same manner that they are used for arcane

> > spellcasters?

>

>Why not use the 2e lists for this? The conversion really isn`t that hard,

>and they were broken up by sphere.

>

>I converted from 3e directly, but I did so with Excel, so I can mix and

>match spell lists with ease.



From those sheets does it look like a practical solution to a 3e version

of the 2e priest system of BR? That is, can one just give access to the

schools of magic for divine spells to the various priests of the Cerilian

gods in a way that corresponds more to their character and emphasis?



Gary

[kgauck]

----- Original Message -----

From: "Gary" <geeman@SOFTHOME.NET>

Sent: Friday, August 29, 2003 11:06 AM





> From those sheets does it look like a practical solution to a 3e version

> of the 2e priest system of BR? That is, can one just give access to the

> schools of magic for divine spells to the various priests of the Cerilian

> gods in a way that corresponds more to their character and emphasis?



Absolutly. I transcribed the spell list into Excel, assigned up to two

spheres to each spell. When I want a god to have a Healing sphere, I can

cut and past all healing spells into their spell list. I use Excell to

reorganize the spell list by spell name, and eliminate any duplicates.

(Because a spell might occupy two spheres.)



I used this system to create the spell lists I put up on class descriptions

at http://home.mchsi.com/~kgauck/taelshore/divine.htm



Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

[RaspK_FOG]

Kenneth, I have to disagree with you on some points.

First of all, even though Barbarians may actually worship the sun or moon part of their portfolio, Avani and Ruornil are not closer to the their concepts about life than Orus-Re&#33; especially with their pathos concerning magic.

I could agree with you on the cleric/rogue-of-Ruornil part, if the clerics used this knowledge only to their advantage. Instead, the clergy of Ruornil is more of the get-reveal-and-store-hidden-truth kind than the get-store-and-use-hidden-truth, more of a delanation to the rogue figure.

Furthermore, none said that fighters or rangers are not faithful people. In fact, and especially with the new rules for rangers, they fit the role you gave better than rogues&#33;

And clerics never had a problem with handling a fight, had they? Not to mention paladins...

Finally, that&#39;s why I believe that a priest class with different sub-classes based on templates is more appropriate than the always battle-ready kind of priest we are presented with all the time&#33;

[irdeggman]

Alright let&#39;s take a step back and look at the basis for the arguments about priests maintaining the spheres of old. I believe that this really has nothing to do with Birthright but instead is an issue people have with the way the 3/3.5 rules work for clerics.

If this is as I suspect an issue with the mechanic then it really has nothing to do with the setting. This would be parallel to having an opinion on whether or not the BAB are really appropriate and that sorcerers should progress faster than it states in the rules or that classes should have a defense adjustment instead of a Armor Class.

While I think that making some sort of 2nd ed like spell lists for clerics is an interesting variant idea it doesn&#39;t really belong in a product that is supposed to be in line with 3/3.5.

As an example - look at what the folks at Athas.org have done with their cleric issue. In Dark Sun all "divine" casters gained spells based on the elements. Every spell (except for a few that were excluded from the campaing setting) were classified as belonging to one of the elementeal spheres (Fire, Earth, Water, Air or Cosmos {the generic one for most everything else}). THere were also 4 paraelemental spheres, but that really isn&#39;t important for this argument. All of the clerics had major access to one elemental sphere and minor to Cosmos. Druids had major to Cosmos and minor to one elemental sphere. All of the healing and resurrection type spells were in Cosmos. So in 2nd ed Dark Sun priests could not rais a character from the dead and only Druids could do that - along with the higher level curing spells.

Well when they put together their 3/3.5 version they went to the standard cleric lists. So now all clerics can Raise Dead and Druids can&#39;t cast Resurrection. They did add Raise Dead to the Druid list to maintain some consistency from 2nd ed.

The point I&#39;m trying to make here - is that for a setting that has a much stronger clerical spell restriction basis (i.e., Dark Sun) the 3/3.5 version has done away with it. They did create new domains to add more "feel" but the curing/raise dead spells still fall on the basic spell list. So why should we treat Birthright (at the core) as being any more restrictive?

[ryancaveney]

On Sat, 30 Aug 2003, irdeggman wrote:



> While I think that making some sort of 2nd ed like spell lists for

> clerics is an interesting variant idea it doesn`t really belong in a

> product that is supposed to be in line with 3/3.5.



And here we have the same old argument again: when Birthright differs from

3e, which is to be changed? I and others think the rules should be

changed to adapt to the setting, and you and others think the setting

should be changed to adapt to the new rules.



> So in 2nd ed Dark Sun priests could not rais a character from the dead

> and only Druids could do that - along with the higher level curing

> spells. Well when they put together their 3/3.5 version they went to

> the standard cleric lists. So now all clerics can Raise Dead and

> Druids can`t cast Resurrection.



I think this is a terribly sad gutting of what was once a fine setting.

This is exactly what I most do not want 3e to do to BR.



> So why should we treat Birthright (at the core) as being any more

> restrictive?



Because they made the wrong decision. We should not make the same

mistake.





Ryan Caveney

[Mark_Aurel]

And here we have the same old argument again: when Birthright differs from
3e, which is to be changed? I and others think the rules should be
changed to adapt to the setting, and you and others think the setting
should be changed to adapt to the new rules.

It goes deeper than that - the question you should ask before talking about setting vs rules is what was setting and what was rules in the 2e depiction? Specialty priests, after all, was a 2e rule, not a Birthright setting specific thing - should we really strive to sneak a 2e rule like that into a 3e game? Where exactly do you draw that line? Birthright, like any setting, can be rendered in many different game systems - in converting between them, I don&#39;t think one should look at the specifics of the subsystems involved, but rather what they&#39;re intended to represent and how to best implement it in the system you&#39;re converting to.

IOW - do: "Priests of Ruornil have magical abilities and are weak in combat;" do not: "Priests of Ruornil gain one level as a magician for every two levels of priest." Levels may not be present in all game systems, and they may not necessarily mean the same even if they are - the same goes for a host of other things. Trying to implement "one level per two" in Storyteller wouldn&#39;t get you very far.

You can&#39;t hold up a certain rule and call it "setting" - the "setting" is the history of the world, its flavor and unique feel, not the specifics of the mechanics involved. Specialty priests were a specific mechanic, as is any other detail of the system; often, or even usually, such details aren&#39;t directly transferrable, though the same flavor can usually be implemented in various different game systems without too much effort.

Now, when trying to implement something in a different game system, the first thing to look for, IMO, is how similar things are done in that system, rather than how it was done in the system you&#39;re converting from - if you liked that system better anyway, keep playing that.

On a more practical level, I think there are several viable ways of implementing the specialty priesthoods in 3e:

1) Use the standard rules, with clerics - invoking multiclassing and skill, feat and spell selection to get the proper flavor of character. Priest of Belinik? Cleric/Barbarian sounds somewhat appropriate. Priest of Ruornil? Cleric with some magician levels. Add in some Prestige Classes for added variety and solving problems that you couldn&#39;t with normal mechanics (Mystic Theurge for Clerics of Ruornil sounds good).

2) You could just redefine spell lists and stuff, as has been suggested before, grouping spell access by schools and descriptors.

3) You could go all the way and define a bunch of new narrowly useful classes, each with their own spell list. I&#39;d find this an interesting variant personally, though obviously it has some serious flaws. It involves a lot of work. It means making a character at 1st level becomes a bit more complicated, as your most basic choice (your class) becomes a more involved one. I t raises some consistency issues - shouldn&#39;t there be more variant full classes like these? I can easily see a separate Brecht fighter class, for instance, with good Reflex saves, a different set of feats to choose from, perhaps different class skills - and a bunch of other fighter variant classes like that. Same thing goes for all the other classes. Of course, differences like those weren&#39;t mechanically shown in 2e - because they couldn&#39;t be shown very well - the flavor difference between the various types was very much there, however. Now, do we override this element of the setting too in favor of just having a single fighter class?

Yes. When it comes right down to it, designing rules just for the sake of rules becomes a bit trite - if the rule itself is pointless, what&#39;s the point? If what you want can be done well enough with existing rules and placing voluntary restrictions on your character, there&#39;s no point in making up a new one, is there?

There are many more ways to implement more variable clerics than those above if you so choose, of course. It&#39;s not really against the rules to make up new classes to fill niches - like the Noble - however, if you&#39;re going to argue that you can&#39;t do the things you could with specialty priests in 2e with the current set of 3e rules, I&#39;d like to see some examples of specific instances, rather than a more generic desire for rules that are more &#39;perfect&#39; or just to suit your personal tastes - I&#39;d like to see the exactly what the system is missing out on by not having specialty priests. If you do point out something that can&#39;t reliably be done mechanically in one way or another with existing rules, I&#39;m sure we can work it out.

I&#39;d also be interested to see your renditions of the specialty priests, if you have any, of course - I like seeing stuff like that, if it&#39;s well done.

[RaspK_FOG]

I have not yet checked the Dragonlance Campaign Setting for 3.5 to its full extent; when I do, I am going to put more info on this, but as far as I have seen, and while this is a D&D 3.5 CS, it still has different classes and variants of existing classes, which gives us an opening to interpret the cleric issue as we like, in the end.

I truly would like to see a different cleric for Birthright, however might he be, as long as he better than the current, broken, and insipid version we have at hand.

[ryancaveney]

On Sat, 30 Aug 2003, Mark_Aurel wrote:



> It goes deeper than that - the question you should ask before talking

> about setting vs rules is what was setting and what was rules in the

> 2e depiction?



I agree.



> Birthright, like any setting, can be rendered in many different game

> systems - in converting between them, I don`t think one should look at

> the specifics of the subsystems involved, but rather what they`re

> intended to represent and how to best implement it in the system

> you`re converting to.



I agree.



> IOW - do: "Priests of Ruornil have magical abilities and are weak in

> combat;" do not: "Priests of Ruornil gain one level as a magician for

> every two levels of priest." Levels may not be present in all game

> systems, and they may not necessarily mean the same even if they are -

> the same goes for a host of other things.



I agree.



> You can`t hold up a certain rule and call it "setting" - the "setting"

> is the history of the world, its flavor and unique feel, not the

> specifics of the mechanics involved.



In theory, yes. In practice, it can be very difficult indeed to pull

these things apart -- they are usually not at all clearly marked as

definitely one or the other. This issue is very much in focus in one of

my other favorite FRPG worlds, Glorantha. It is still in the process of

converting between two totally different styles of standard rules

mechanics, and it is still very unclear to many fans what exactly is

Gloranthan reality and what was just RuneQuest rules artifacts. At least

there, the creator is still around to tell us what he really means, but

then he also frequently changes his mind and contradicts things he

previously said, so it is not necessarily that helpful. =)



One recent thread where this popped up and remains unresolved is with

respect to elven healing magic. "Elves do not worship gods" is a pretty

unassailable feature of the BR setting. However, there are deep divisions

in the community over whether "elves can`t cast healing spells" is an

accidental rules-only consequence of that, or a setting design element in

its own right. We really just can`t tell, so personal preference reigns.



With respect to specialty priests, what I would claim is the rules-free

setting truth is "priests of different religions cast very different kinds

of magic. Many pairs of religions have almost no overlapping magics."

This is a feature which cannot be implemented in straight-out-of-the-PHB

3e. Therefore, to keep true to the flavor of the setting, we need to

change the 3e cleric rules from their default setting in some way which

makes the religions more thoroughly different.



> if you liked that system better anyway, keep playing that.



Oh, I am -- but I`m also trying to help make the BRCS the best

continuation of my beloved Birthright it can be.



> 1) Use the standard rules, with clerics - invoking multiclassing and

> skill, feat and spell selection to get the proper flavor of character.

> Priest of Belinik? Cleric/Barbarian sounds somewhat appropriate.

> Priest of Ruornil? Cleric with some magician levels.



Yes, multiclassing could work very well, if it weren`t for the fact that

no spellcaster who understands the rules should ever decide to do it

unless forced at gunpoint. =)



> 2) You could just redefine spell lists and stuff, as has been

> suggested before, grouping spell access by schools and descriptors.



That would be the least we should do.



> shouldn`t there be more variant full classes like these? I can easily

> see a separate Brecht fighter class, for instance, with good Reflex

> saves, a different set of feats to choose from, perhaps different

> class skills - and a bunch of other fighter variant classes like that.



Oh, I very much like this approach as well. In part, the problem is that

3e`s base classes are actually already too narrow in some ways -- this

kind of thing seems like it is much better handled by the very generic yet

very greatly tailorable base classes of D20 Modern.



> Same thing goes for all the other classes. Of course, differences like

> those weren`t mechanically shown in 2e - because they couldn`t be

> shown very well



The single best thing 3e does for BR is provide the NPC classes, so all

those "0-level" human advisor / courtier / lieutenant types can now become

nicely-leveled Aristocrats and Experts.



> If what you want can be done well enough with existing rules and

> placing voluntary restrictions on your character, there`s no point in

> making up a new one, is there?



If it can be done well enough with existing rules, yes. I think showing

the differences between religions cannot be done well enough with vanilla

3e. I don`t really buy the "voluntary" restrictions part -- does that

mean we should simply say that it would be nice if unblooded characters

would refrain from becoming wizards, but we won`t do anything in the rules

to stop them? That it would be nice if a cleric would avoid claiming to

be a worshipper of Pelor or St. Cuthbert or Olidamarra, but we won`t do

anything in the rules to stop them? No, if the setting has certain

properties, the rules, not merely guidelines, should reflect that. After

all, even the most stridently proclaimed rule is only a guideline in the

end, so anything labeled a guideline will probably be mostly ignored.



> I`d like to see the exactly what the system is missing out on

> by not having specialty priests.



The big thing is that all 3e clerics are far too much alike. What I most

want is for no two religions to have spell lists with more than 50%

overlap. If we can get it down to just 25% overlap, that would be ideal.



As for making BAB, HD, saves, etc. different, I think that can be done

with multiclassing, but it ought to be *required* multiclassing. That is,

I would use a rule that says you can have no more levels of cleric of a

particular god than you have levels of one other particular class,

depending on religion. That is, for example, you could have no more

levels of Cleric of Belinik than you have levels of Barbarian, no more

levels of Cleric of Cuiraecen than levels of Fighter, no more levels of

Cleric of Eloele than levels of Rogue, and so on. Exactly which class you

need to get levels of a Cleric of Foo would be up for some discussion (in

particular, I think Haelyn should require Aristocrat, but some might not

like the consequence that there could be no commoner priests of his faith;

and what the heck would Nesirie multiclass with?), but I think the general

idea is quite sound.





Ryan Caveney

[kgauck]

----- Original Message -----

From: "Mark_Aurel" <brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET>

Sent: Saturday, August 30, 2003 4:47 PM





> Specialty priests, after all, was a 2e rule, not a Birthright setting

specific

> thing - should we really strive to sneak a 2e rule like that into a 3e

game?



This wasn`t a rule. It was a concept of how to portray priets which was

supported by rules. As a concept it was a good concept, and made the BR

world more interesting. In many ways 3e reduced the significance of

different priesthoods while increasing the ability to specialize in all the

other classes.



> It raises some consistency issues -



Between what and what? This has false analogy all over it.



> shouldn`t there be more variant full classes like these? I can easily

> see a separate Brecht fighter class, for instance, with good Reflex

> saves, a different set of feats to choose from, perhaps different

> class skills - and a bunch of other fighter variant classes like that.



This doesn`t follow. Standard PHB clerics have powers that should be denied

to specific mythos. Brecht fighters built on the PHB don`t have powers that

ought not have. Certainly I can build a fighter of Brecht heritage that

looks more Anuirean, Khinasi, &c than Brecht, but that is not a problem.

There is a barrier between a priestess of Krisha looking like a priestess of

Laerme. Its the divine order. The PHB cleric doesn`t support that barrier

with rules. There is no reason Albrecht the Herr can`t learn to fight like

Gawain of Roesone. He may need to seek out special trainers, but he can

learn to do it. As for keeping a clear path for specific fighter types,

just make a list of suggested feats. These feats are ubiquitous or nearly

so in a givin location and training in the cultural tradition is easy and

encouraged. But training outside is not impossible. Especially as much a

characters move around. Why, if Albrecht lives in Roesone, should be even

be able to learn Brecht feats? From who is he gaining this training? He sh

ould look more and more like Gawain.



Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

[geeman]

At 06:27 PM 8/30/2003 +0200, irdeggman wrote:



> Alright let`s take a step back and look at the basis for the arguments

> about priests maintaining the spheres of old. I believe that this really

> has nothing to do with Birthright but instead is an issue people have

> with the way the 3/3.5 rules work for clerics.

>

> If this is as I suspect an issue with the mechanic then it really has

> nothing to do with the setting. This would be parallel to having an

> opinion on whether or not the BAB are really appropriate and that

> sorcerers should progress faster than it states in the rules or that

> classes should have a defense adjustment instead of a Armor Class.

>

> While I think that making some sort of 2nd ed like spell lists for

> clerics is an interesting variant idea it doesn`t really belong in a

> product that is supposed to be in line with 3/3.5.



Well, it is under the title "Variant Rules for the BRCS".... Variant rules

could go in a supplement if they don`t fit into the BRCS text itself--which

in this case is pretty unlikely given that amount of space it would require

and the already large BRCS document. An update of the Book of Priestcraft

seems like it would be a good place for this kind of thing.



As you point out several 2e rules may not have been a good reflection of

the setting, and I`d suggest a few things about that. First, I

agree. Many 2e rules did interfere with what should have been more clearly

defined BR themes, or didn`t cover BR themes very well, and we should make

an effort to differentiate between the rules and the setting in making an

updated version of the setting. However, that doesn`t necessarily mean

that this particular issue (spheres for clerics vs. 3e`s domains and total

access to divine spells) is one of them. The question then becomes "Which

would be a better method of reflecting BR`s priesthood?"



In this case, I think something like the 2e spheres and specialty priest

system is a better way to go, because it can be used to reflect campaign

material better than the 3e domains. I know it tends to attract the ire of

folks who disagree with the assessment that 3e is designed for the core

FR/GH settings, and that many aspects of it should be fundamentally

different for BR, but if any part of the 3e texts illustrate this

particular aspect of that issue it`s this one. Much of the pantheon

material of 3e is right out of those settings, and the changes to the

cleric character class in 3e are made to suit that material. What`s more

the 3e core materials are written in order to be as general as possible in

order to accommodate as many priests as there are gods, and there was still

several pages of text dedicated to the "core pantheon." Giving all clerics

access to the whole of divine spells is fine when the pantheon is so large

as to make any specialty system a huge undertaking.



Anyway, I`d contend that making an update of the BR setting that is in line

with the 3e/3.5 rules is itself not necessarily a very good way to

go. Several folks have said that this is/was the goal in coming up with

the BRCS Playtest and, while I think there are certain merits to that

emphasis, in the long run I don`t think it`s the way to go. Making BR look

like 3e is generally a dilution of the campaign. Where you note that we

should differentiate between the campaign and the 2e rules that it was

written under, I`d suggest the same is true for an update of the

setting. Where 3e`s rules do not reflect the setting`s dynamics they

should be changed or discarded, and we should take note of where the update

is falling prey to "rulism" in regards to the updated 3e/3.5 system just as

we note where it happened in the 2e rules.



When it comes to 3e`s domains and clerics, I think we`ve an opportunity

that is unavailable in the core rules, which by definition have to be more

general not only so they can be used to describe the panoply of gods for

their core settings, but also in order to reflect a more generalized system

of character class. In BR, however, we have only a very few gods for whom

speciality priests need be designed, so we can be more particular in their

traits. To do that a system of speciality priests and spheres is more

versatile and useful than 3e`s domains/cleric class.



To me, the problem with the sphere/speciality priest method of 2e is that

it was sort of a system of no guidelines. Very little actual mechanics

were written to describe how to go about designing specialty priests, so in

BR we wound up with some character classes that had unbalanced powers and

abilities. I would, therefore, like to take it a step further and

introduce a "3e" (D20 would be a better description) system of

specialty/sphere that was more balanced (or at least symmetrical) and had

guidelines for how to go about designing specialty priests, but that`s a

whole `nother post....



Gary

[Mark_Aurel]

I know it tends to attract the ire of
folks who disagree with the assessment that 3e is designed for the core
FR/GH settings, and that many aspects of it should be fundamentally
different for BR, but if any part of the 3e texts illustrate this
particular aspect of that issue it`s this one. Much of the pantheon
material of 3e is right out of those settings, and the changes to the
cleric character class in 3e are made to suit that material. What`s more
the 3e core materials are written in order to be as general as possible in
order to accommodate as many priests as there are gods, and there was still
several pages of text dedicated to the "core pantheon." Giving all clerics
access to the whole of divine spells is fine when the pantheon is so large
as to make any specialty system a huge undertaking.

The problem with this assessment is that you&#39;re completely ignoring something - that FR (though not GH, as that was out of production for most of 2e) had a huge system of specialty priests - many more, and much larger than BR had. This was no more or less intrinsic to the setting than the specialty priests of BR. The issue you mention has nothing to do with the insidious FR/GH conspiracy, and everything to do with simplification.

I think I missed a part in an earlier post about this. If you want specialty priests, why not also specialty fighters, or specialty rogues, or specialty wizards (not just school specialization, mind you)? Those are all at least as appropriate as specialty priests. The answer to this, I believe is that of playability and overview - if you have 60 classes to choose from at 1st level, it increases the time spent looking for just the right class and overall makes it much harder to get into the system. Thus, the class philosophy is instead one of giving players fewer, but somewhat customizable classes to choose from - either through choosing class bonuses/abilities, or feats and skills. I think that&#39;s pretty much the core of the reason for this change - to keep choices simple for new players, and keep 1st-level character generation simple. On the other hand, you get an increasing degree of complexity in choices as you level up - multiclassing, more feats become available, and prestige classes.

You can build pretty much the same characters mechanically as you could in 2e (though relative power levels may be different) through using the full tapestry of 3e rules. For clerics, there&#39;s also the aspect of character niche - character classes conform to certain archetypes (even if they&#39;re D&D-specific archetypes) and having base classes break those, as the BR-type specialty priests would, really makes the multiclassing system of 3e redundant - you might as well have an enormous amount of in-betweener classes, then, instead of the relatively simple multiclassing system.

A wholly different issue is the issue of core class customizability. Personally, I&#39;d like to have most of them be a bit more customizable as a standard deal, without abandoning the archetype feel - especially the spellcasters. d20 Modern does a fair job here, though I don&#39;t think all the classes should be like that either. Arcana Unearthed also has some interesting variations. The PHB also covers this somewhat, but leaves it very vague with the example of the rogue guild enforcer-fighter. Simple changes like that shouldn&#39;t be too hard to implement or balance for an experienced DM.

And, just to note - I don&#39;t mind defining new core classes, but I think they should be fairly broadly useful - I think a Noble class is far, far more useful than a specialty priest class that you might only see once in a blue moon anyway (in terms of the players in a game, anyway). In the context of 3e rules, that sounds much more like a prestige class than a core class.

[RaspK_FOG]

Well, look at the whole issue from this light: BR allows a cleric to be of any alignment that shares at least one part of the deity&#39;s alignment. That means that a cleric of a lawful good (LG) deity can be lawful good (LG), neutral good (NG), chaotic good (CG), lawful neutral (LN), or even lawful evil (LE), while the standard rules allow for clerics to be up to one step from their deity&#39;s alignment, meaning only lawful good (LG), neutral good (NG), and lawufl neutral (LN) clerics are normally allowed for a lawful good (LG) deity to have.

What we want to see are not exactly specialty priests as much as more deity oriented priests, which were more of a given in BR. As for FR, yes, the new editions support the prestige class ideal with one of their new books.

The problem, though, ensues from the mere fact that an acolyte of Nesirie, an acolyte of Ruornil, an acolyte of Avani, an acolyte of Healyn, and an acolyte or Krisha would be so much alike using the standard PHB rules that they would very well be of the same clergy&#33; Their only true differences would have to do with chaotic, evil, good, and lawful spells, as well as with domain spells.

Furthermore, me and other people find very annoying the fact that clerics have the same number of spells per day (without taking bonus spells due to high mental ability scores into account) that a specialised wizard has&#33; That means that a wizard gets to forgo two (2) schools of magic forever, even the use of magic items that have spell trigger/spell activation powers from these schools, while the cleric has nothing to forgo&#33;

And, if you want my opinion, making everything into prestige classes is a whole waste of good ideas. In DL, you had to pass the Test of High Sorcery, or run off and become a renegade wizard. Now, making it a prestige class, it takes away some of the value of taking the Test. Not to mention the three (3) prestige classes that are associated with the Solamnic Knights... OUCH&#33;

[Mark_Aurel]

The problem, though, ensues from the mere fact that an acolyte of Nesirie, an acolyte of Ruornil, an acolyte of Avani, an acolyte of Healyn, and an acolyte or Krisha would be so much alike using the standard PHB rules that they would very well be of the same clergy&#33;

Just because priests are of different clergy does not mean they should have different powers or be different. Priests of a certain faith all fulfill certain basic functions - primarily holding the body of religious lore and being advisers, community leaders or spiritual guides, but also secondary functions related to these primaries. These basic functions could easily all be subsumed into a standard package for any clergy - just like rabbis, orthodox priests, catholic priests, mullahs, imams, shamans, and pretty much any other spiritual figurehead can be lumped together in terms of similar stats - "knows religion, should be wise."

If, on the other hand, you were to argue that gods of different portfolios should grant spells and powers based on those portfolios, that&#39;d be a much better line of reasoning. The basic acolytes of any given faith should be fairly similar in terms of skills, though, even if their philosophical outlook is radically different. When you speak of the specially chosen servants of the gods, though, things could be different, though given the game system, there&#39;s a lot of powers that all divine spellcasters should have in order to be able to do their job properly.

Perhaps the best place to showcase the difference between gods is in what clerics can do with the miracle spell - the upper-end uses of this spell should really be gods using their salient divine abilities on the cleric&#39;s behalf.

[geeman]

At 07:34 AM 9/1/2003 +0200, Mark_Aurel wrote:



>
I know it tends to attract the ire of

> folks who disagree with the assessment that 3e is designed for the core

> FR/GH settings, and that many aspects of it should be fundamentally

> different for BR, but if any part of the 3e texts illustrate this

> particular aspect of that issue it`s this one. Much of the pantheon

> material of 3e is right out of those settings, and the changes to the

> cleric character class in 3e are made to suit that material. What`s more

> the 3e core materials are written in order to be as general as possible in

> order to accommodate as many priests as there are gods, and there was still

> several pages of text dedicated to the "core pantheon." Giving

> all clerics

> access to the whole of divine spells is fine when the pantheon is so large

> as to make any specialty system a huge undertaking.

>

> The problem with this assessment is that you`re completely ignoring

> something - that FR (though not GH, as that was out of production for

> most of 2e) had a huge system of specialty priests - many more, and much

> larger than BR had. This was no more or less intrinsic to the setting

> than the specialty priests of BR. The issue you mention has nothing to do

> with the insidious FR/GH conspiracy, and everything to do with simplification.



First of all, let me say that I don`t think the FR/GH aspects of 3e are an

insidious conspiracy, or any other pejorative description. I`m not a

particularly big fan of either of those settings anymore, but I`ve played

both GH and FR in the past and had fun. They work in the context of

D&D. In fact, they could be described as the context of D&D in relation to

D20. It`s perfectly fine to have that kind of thing in a set of core

texts. Many texts for core systems include basic campaign

materials. Blood of Heroes does, Call of Cthulhu does, Traveller`s many

incarnations do. I think it`s being assumed that when I point out a FR/GH

influence in 3e that I`m suggesting that that is a _bad thing_ when I`m

not. The inclusion of such campaign material along with core rules makes

them more approachable, and the campaign settings they support--being

something of an intentional mish mash and free-for-all set of themes--make

the 3e rules a fairly mixed bag of fantasy themes useable in a general way

for many other fantasy settings. It is important to recognize where the

core texts have been influenced by that campaign material when using the

core rules for another setting, and to give the dynamics of the different

setting precedence over the core materials. One of the basic premises

that`s been floated in this thread is that we should differentiate between

BR and 2e because it`s clear that these two things are not necessarily in

sync with one another AND that those influences are there. It`s as evident

as... well, the FR/GH influences on 3e.



Having said that, let`s go ahead and assume that the elimination of

specialty priests and spheres in the change from 2e to 3e had nothing to do

with FR/GH, that writing up new 3e versions of those specialization effects

for the pantheons that have been added to and expanded for over thirty

years was not something that would have seriously impacted the length or

effort that would have gone into the core texts, and was not anything the

core designers were concerned by. We can also assume that the elimination

was an intentional effort at simplification over complexity--despite the

way nearly every other aspect of character classes in 3e (skills, the feat

system, the particulars of combat, etc.) are more complex and carefully

articulated than they were in 2e, so in the face of an almost universally

more complex system the designers decided that simplification in this one

area was more apt. We assume both those (rather conflicting) things

because what`s really at issue is whether the 3e generalist cleric class

and system of domains is a better way of dealing with BR`s tiny pantheon

and priesthood than a system of specialty priests and spheres of

spells. It doesn`t matter if generalist clerics and domains were developed

due to a need to reflect FR/GH dynamics, or whether it was meant to

simplify the character class system. What matters is which method would

best reflect BR`s dynamics. In this case I`m leaning more towards the

specialty priest/sphere method over the generalist cleric/domain method

because it strikes me as being a better way of representing actual

differences between the limited number of gods in BR.



Changes like the speciality priest function of 2e are also well within the

capacities of the core 3e/3.5 rules. It falls under the broad area of the

DMG`s section on modifying character classes. We needn`t call them

"specialty priests" or any other 2e descriptor. We can view the

modifications of the cleric class for each particular BR god as qualifying

as an "effort to accommodate reasonable modifications [that] is almost

always worth it." The changes that reflect specialty priests could qualify

as the trading of class abilities under that section, while the use of

spheres would fall under the development of spell lists for variant

spellcasters.



> I think I missed a part in an earlier post about this. If you want

> specialty priests, why not also specialty fighters, or specialty rogues,

> or specialty wizards (not just school specialization, mind you)?



I for one do want specialty fighters, rogues and wizards. At least, I want

to use a few simple changes or expansions to the core classes to better

reflect BR themes better than the existing specialization functions of

those classes in 3e. I want to use such specializations to reflect things

like the elven emphasis on nature and elementalist magic, the different

fighting styles of the various races, and the whole aspect of BR guilders

rather than the standard, D&D rogue. Campaign specific changes to such

things can be very useful.



For example, when it comes to fighters I`m thinking now that the best

solution would be to compile lists of feats to reflect the racial and

cultural differences of BR, rather than assumption of 3e that fighters have

access to pretty most of the the combat related feats. Those lists could

have certain common feats something like this might work:



Brecht Bonus Fighter Feats: Two-Weapon Fighting, Weapon Finesse--rapier,

Mobility....



Sidhe Bonus Fighter Feats: Weapon Finesse--Longsword or any bow, Track,

Point Blank Shot....



Vos Bonus Fighter Feats: Improved Bull Rush, Cleave, Power Attack, Exotic

Weapon--Vos Spear, Weapon Finesse--Vos Spear....



Fighters could still, of course, take feats that were not on their list of

bonus feats as feats available every 3rd level just like any other

character, but their access to particular bonus feats would be based on a

general cultural or racial fighting style. I think it would be cool to put

such packages to reflect each of the races, and could even be broken up

further into things like a "knight" package, a "sailor" package or a

"dervish" package, and make those packages available to the appropriate

race/culture. That`s more specialized than the 3e fighter class, but not

unbreakably so. Similarly, I think the specialty priest and sphere issue

might not be as dire a change nor so different from the standard 3e methods

as to be a problem.



>Those are all at least as appropriate as specialty priests. The answer to

>this, I believe is that of playability and overview - if you have 60

>classes to choose from at 1st level, it increases the time spent looking

>for just the right class and overall makes it much harder to get into the

>system. Thus, the class philosophy is instead one of giving players fewer,

>but somewhat customizable classes to choose from - either through choosing

>class bonuses/abilities, or feats and skills. I think that`s pretty much

>the core of the reason for this change - to keep choices simple for new

>players, and keep 1st-level character generation simple. On the other

>hand, you get an increasing degree of complexity in choices as you level

>up - multiclassing, more feats become available, and prestige classes.



Sixty classes isn`t really what specialty priesthood and spheres of spells

would do. While it`s not as simple as a generalist cleric class with

domains, it`s not a very dramatic increase in complexity. The process of

choosing from a list of gods and domains isn`t significantly easier or more

time conserving than choosing a set of specialty priest abilities and an

overall set of spheres. In the same way 3e clerics pick a god and must

choose a domain and granted power, a system of BR specialty priests and

spheres would have players making a choice and gaining a set of

effects. I`m confident that the actual amount of time and effort spent one

either method would be little different from the player`s standpoint. It

would take some more effort to write up from a DM standpoint, particularly

breaking upthe spells into spheres... but there are ways to simplify that

process, and we don`t really need all that many spheres. Just enough to

reflect a dozen (or so) BR gods.



> And, just to note - I don`t mind defining new core classes, but I think

> they should be fairly broadly useful - I think a Noble class is far, far

> more useful than a specialty priest class that you might only see once in

> a blue moon anyway (in terms of the players in a game, anyway).



I find a lot more clerics running around in my campaigns. In fact, with

the exception of a few adventures in elven lands they`re pretty ubiquitous.



>In the context of 3e rules, that sounds much more like a prestige class

>than a core class.



Prestige classes is one way to go. One of the premises of BR, however, is

that it is a low-level campaign setting. "Low-level" and D&D 3e are in

many some ways opposing concepts, but for this issue I think the

modification to character class function works as a better reflection of

the BR theme than using the specialization function of prestige classes

and, therefore, making characters wait 5+ levels.



There are several BR temple regents who are low level. If we have only the

prestige class function in place then we have characters who lead a temple

dedicated to a particular god, but have few actual personal powers to show

for it.



From the standpoint of writing up campaign materials it`s not any more

effort to write up specialty priest classes than it is to write up prestige

classes.



> Mark_Aurel later wrote:

>
The problem, though, ensues from the mere fact that an acolyte

> of Nesirie, an acolyte of Ruornil, an acolyte of Avani, an acolyte of

> Healyn, and an acolyte or Krisha would be so much alike using the

> standard PHB rules that they would very well be of the same clergy&#33;

>

> Just because priests are of different clergy does not mean they should

> have different powers or be different. Priests of a certain faith all

> fulfill certain basic functions - primarily holding the body of religious

> lore and being advisers, community leaders or spiritual guides, but also

> secondary functions related to these primaries. These basic functions

> could easily all be subsumed into a standard package for any clergy -

> just like rabbis, orthodox priests, catholic priests, mullahs, imams,

> shamans, and pretty much any other spiritual figurehead can be lumped

> together in terms of similar stats - "knows religion, should be

> wise."



If this were a discussion of what should go into the core BR setting I

might be more inclined to agree--I still wouldn`t agree, but I`d be more

inclined to. Since people are talking about variant rules (that can mean

variants that go into the BRCS, stuff to go into a supplement, or just

things they`d like to change) its less important to stay close to the cant.



Besides, we`re still at the brainstorming and speculating stage here. No

one has actually even tried writing up 3e specialty priest classes and

spheres yet. It may work, it may not. That doesn`t mean we can`t or

shouldn`t discuss the possibilities....



Gary

[irdeggman]

I tend to find that the discussion over specialty priesthoods seems to revolve more around power-gaming than flavor. It seems to fall around what can the priest do with respect to casting (or not casting) certain types of spells rather than how they behave. Clerics (priests) are one of the most role-playing oriented classes that there is. Based solely on the deity being worshipped clerics have a certain behaviour associated with them. This is the flavor aspect, IMO, not that a cleric of Haelyn should have a different spell list than one of Rournil.

This political/philosophical differentiation in BR was even more acutely defined by the different sects as defined in the BoP. All priests of Haelyn had the same spell list in 2nd ed, but the sect that the priest belonged to defined his behaviour and thus reflected the flavor of the campaign and in many aspects priests of the same deity of different sects were more at odds than they were with priests of other deities.

Just my 2 cp.

[kgauck]

----- Original Message -----

From: "irdeggman" <brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET>

Sent: Monday, September 01, 2003 5:40 PM





> I tend to find that the discussion over specialty priesthoods seems

> to revolve more around power-gaming than flavor.



I would say that reducing the spell list by removing a large number of

spells is hardly the conventional definition of powergaming. I would say

that constructing specialty classes to support good roleplay. Take the Vos

and their gods, they rejected Vorynn and knowledge, so why would they be

able to cast divinations?



Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

[RaspK_FOG]

Originally posted by kgauck@Sep 1 2003, 11:58 PM
From: "irdeggman"




> I tend to find that the discussion over specialty priesthoods seems

> to revolve more around power-gaming than flavor.



I would say that reducing the spell list by removing a large number of

spells is hardly the conventional definition of powergaming. I would say

that constructing specialty classes to support good roleplay. Take the Vos

and their gods, they rejected Vorynn and knowledge, so why would they be

able to cast divinations?



Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com













I have to agree on this. I, for one, am a supporter of the idea that the over-generalisation of the cleric class has given out far more liberty to power-gamers than to flavour-maniacs. I, in fact, impose a whole festivity-and-other-trivia year cycle to all of the clerics who appear in my campaign according to their patron&#33;

Furthermore, none has given an answer to my question: why should all clerics get the same number of spell slots per day that a specialist wizard gets? This is obsurd and unfair.

Furthermore, I believe that an acolyte of Belinik is far from similar to an acolyte of Ruornil, and if the cleric has to multi-class with any other class with a minimum fraction of levels per cleric class levels, so be it, but this only powers down the cleric too much and imposes too big and rough a pattern to fit all clerics inside, while prestige classes... well, you get my point.

[geeman]

At 04:04 AM 9/2/2003 +0200, RaspK_FOG wrote:



> Furthermore, none has given an answer to my question: why should

> all clerics get the same number of spell slots per day that a

> specialist wizard gets? This is obsurd and unfair.



I would speculate that it comes from a sort of symmetrical thinking in

regards to the access of characters to the magic system. It is easier to

just write up one pattern, I suppose, and riff off of that for different

spellcasters. 1e, of course, had spell slots tables for spellcasting

classes that were all over the place. That was probably for several

reasons, most having to do with the way the magic system hadn`t been

particularly regularized or given a whole lot of symmetry. 2e was a bit

better, but in 3e the levels of spells are more regular (at least, there`s

a 1-9 range for all of them) so it probably seemed like the best way to go

to have clerics as the premier divine casters have the same overall access

to their spell slots that wizards as the premier arcane casters do.



On a somewhat off-topic aside: Ages ago I played with a DM who gave all

clerics (as well as druids, paladins and the divine spells of rangers)

access to the kind of spontaneous spellcasting that is now used for

sorcerers and bards in 3e. This was way back when everyone`s 1e books were

crisp and new, and Gygax still had hair. The justification was that divine

magic is the kind of thing that one prays for spontaneously, it`s a

miraculous sort of magic as opposed to the "scientific" or even

"industrial" nature of arcane magic, and doesn`t require the same kind of

preparation or deliberation. In 3e, of course, they`ve gone a sort of

half-measure for clerics requiring them to "memorize" but allowing them to

those spells for healing magic. It`s twenty years later, and I still think

he made a good argument for the spontaneous casting of divine magic. Maybe

giving clerics access to the sorcerer table would better?



Gary

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by RaspK_FOG@Sep 1 2003, 09:04 PM

Furthermore, none has given an answer to my question: why should all clerics get the same number of spell slots per day that a specialist wizard gets? This is obsurd and unfair.


Are you saying that clerics get too many or too few spells per day?

3rd ed clerics actually get fewer spells per day than did their 2nd ed counterparts. The big advantage they now have is that they can spontaneously cast cure (or inflict) spells. This gives them a major advantage over previous versions. They can memorize other spells and not have to devote slots to the infamous "party band-aid" type of role they have historically had.

Now for probably the major reason that 3rd ed "revised" clerics so that they have a broader range of spells - the fact that it is probably the least chosen class to be be played by players.

Even with the new and more player friendly version of clerics it is still the least favored class to be played. There are exceptions, but overall this is (based on personal observation and previous posts) a very valid assessment.

[Birthright-L]

> Even with the new and more player friendly version of clerics it is still the least favored class to be played. There are exceptions, but overall this is (based on personal observation and previous posts) a very valid assessment.



This isn`t very relavent to the discussion, but I wanted to respond to the

above statement by saying that based on my observations and gaming history,

the cleric seems to be one of the most favored classes, right next to

fighter. Rogues and wizards tend to be tied for second place. Least

favored classes tend to include druid, bard, monk (except by monk fans),

barbarian, and ranger.



I just find it curious to see that other people have different results in

their gaming.



-Lord Rahvin

[DanMcSorley]

On Tue, 2 Sep 2003, RaspK_FOG wrote:

> Furthermore, none has given an answer to my question: why should

> all clerics get the same number of spell slots per day that a

> specialist wizard gets? This is obsurd and unfair.



Because that is the way it is written in the 3rd edition rules, and the

BRCS is an updating of the setting to those rules. If you dislike

something about the design of the recent editions, that`s fine, and play

how you like in your own game, but we`re not rewriting the rules into our

own bastardized house-rules version of 3e. There are a number of things I

tweak in my own games, and I`m not about to try to foist those rulings off

onto other people under the guise of material for the BR setting.



The further BR strays from regular third edition (/3.5 now), the more we

cut down the potential audience, too.



--

Daniel McSorley

[ryancaveney]

On Tue, 2 Sep 2003, Daniel McSorley wrote:



> The further BR strays from regular third edition (/3.5 now), the more

> we cut down the potential audience, too.



The closer BR gets to slavishly following every nuance of the 3e PHB to

the letter, the more completely homogenized, drained and dulled it

becomes, and the less point there is to having a new audience at all.



If the only way we are allowed to customize clerics for 3e Birthright is

to say "these are the names of the gods, and these are the four domains

and one favored weapon of each of them", then there is no point in making

any conversion at all. Many of the professionally published D20 settings

make much bigger changes to the rules, especially the magic rules, than

this thread has yet contemplated; they do this because it is part and

parcel of adding real flavor to any setting. If we foolishly hold

ourselves to a different standard, and force ourselves merely to photocopy

the PHB with a couple of name changes scribbled in, the result will

inevitably be exactly the same as the eviscerated faux Greyhawk presented

in the PHB, with occasional thin splotches of spray-paint.



It won`t deserve the name Birthright at all.





Ryan Caveney

[geeman]

At 02:40 PM 9/2/2003 -0400, Daniel McSorley wrote:



>The further BR strays from regular third edition (/3.5 now), the more we

>cut down the potential audience, too.



I`ve heard this argument a couple of times, and I`m curious what it`s based

on. Is there any evidence that the further things stray from 3e/3.5 the

smaller the audience will be?



Gary

[DanMcSorley]

On Tue, 2 Sep 2003, Ryan B. Caveney wrote:

> If the only way we are allowed to customize clerics for 3e Birthright is

> to say "these are the names of the gods, and these are the four domains

> and one favored weapon of each of them", then there is no point in making

> any conversion at all. Many of the professionally published D20 settings

> make much bigger changes to the rules, especially the magic rules, than

> this thread has yet contemplated; they do this because it is part and

> parcel of adding real flavor to any setting. If we foolishly hold

> ourselves to a different standard, and force ourselves merely to photocopy

> the PHB with a couple of name changes scribbled in, the result will

> inevitably be exactly the same as the eviscerated faux Greyhawk presented

> in the PHB, with occasional thin splotches of spray-paint.

>

> It won`t deserve the name Birthright at all.



Over-react much? Yep, bloodlines, scions ruling domains, leading armies

into battle, awnsheghlien, this really is just greyhawk by another name, I

don`t know why I didn`t see it before.



The implementation of clerics is totally irrelevant to the flavor of the

setting. They used speciality clerics in 2nd edition because that was the

2nd edition rule set. There`s nothing especially birthright-ish about

specialty priests. It`s pretty much coincidense that they`re associated

with the setting, because that happened to be the way Wizards was

describing religions when BR was published.



Had Birthright originally been published in 2001, Wizards would have

spec`ed out the religions using domains and the 3rd edition versions of

clerics, and when fourth edition came out in aught-six, all of us crusty

old-timers would have been complaining that "domains and spell preparation

are a necessary part of the flavor of birthright, I can`t believe they

want to change clerics to use these spell-points from fourth edition."



Actually, and totally as an aside, the first RPG book I ever owned was the

Greyhawk hardcover, and during the time I was buying game material there

was never really a product published detailing the world of greyhawk or

its history. It never made sense to me why there were these independant

kingdoms laying around calling themselves duchies and counties, but they

didn`t answer to a king. I picked up that little 32-page "D&D Gazeteer" a

couple of weeks ago, and it all makes much more sense now. The kingdom of

Aerdy broke up and all these little duchies, principalities, etc seceded

and became independant. It actually seems like a good setup for a

BR-style game, now that I know the history bits. Probably need to run it

without bloodlines and RP, but the rules in the BRCS conveniently support

that pretty well now. It will probably be easier to sell my group on a

kingdom-ruling game in Greyhawk than one in Cerilia. Sigh.



--

Daniel McSorley

[DanMcSorley]

On Tue, 2 Sep 2003, Gary wrote:

> >The further BR strays from regular third edition (/3.5 now), the more we

> >cut down the potential audience, too.

>

> I`ve heard this argument a couple of times, and I`m curious what it`s based

> on. Is there any evidence that the further things stray from 3e/3.5 the

> smaller the audience will be?



Evidence? Hell no. Has there ever been a marketing study done on RPGs?

Wizards did a little bit prior to 3e, but that may have been the first,

and it was about the sales of core rulebooks compared to settings, not

settings compared to other settings.



If you use straight 3rd edition rules, your potential audience is everyone

who plays with those rules and has access to your product (in our case,

anyone with an internet connection). Things like books of spells,

prestige classes, and monsters have done rather well in this vein.



When you stray from baseline rules, your potential audience is everyone

who plays with the baseline rules, has access to your product, and is

willing to either adapt their game to your rules, or rewrite the stats of

your product to work with their baseline game. Logically, this is a

subset of the first group, and probably smaller.



--

Daniel McSorley

[geeman]

At 05:26 PM 9/2/2003 -0400, Daniel McSorley wrote:



> > I`ve heard this argument a couple of times, and I`m curious what it`s based

> > on. Is there any evidence that the further things stray from 3e/3.5 the

> > smaller the audience will be?

>

>Evidence? Hell no. Has there ever been a marketing study done on RPGs?

>Wizards did a little bit prior to 3e, but that may have been the first,

>and it was about the sales of core rulebooks compared to settings, not

>settings compared to other settings.



More direct evidence for the purpose of this question would be things like

the number of downloads the BRCS Playtest has had, the number of new

enrollees for BR.net since it was released, or the number of posts before

and after the release. Things of that order. We`d need a control or at

least a comparison to have some sort of real way of measuring the

effectiveness of the method, but even without that we could take those

figures as anecdotal evidence.



In regards to WotC`s 3e marketing research it`s a mistake to extrapolate

from the marketing from one product to make assumptions about the marketing

of another. The marketing done for D&D`s core rules does not translate

into a marketing plan for setting material, particularly fan-produced

setting update material which is at least two or three steps away from such

marketing data.



If I recall correctly what I`ve read of the marketing results for D&D was

that there was more of a market for _continuous updates_ of the rules, and

that they could make a greater, long-term profit out of such a business

strategy, not that the rules themselves were somehow more

marketable. Updated versions of D&D would have a pretty predictable sale

rate, so if the production costs could be controlled the profits would be

similarly predictable.



The marketing results that led to D20 were the conclusion that in order to

maximize profits and maintain their market share they needed to have a

broader, more inclusive system of rules that could be used as a

cross-campaign platform. The thinking at the time appears to have been

that they would no longer market campaign settings--giving that over to

smaller, more compact companies who could afford to do more of what amounts

to "the R&D" of gaming while they focused on their core settings. Hence,

the OGL for D20.



The overall business plan is a sort of fusion of how technology oriented

businesses operated and is similar to what has been going on in the

entertainment industry. Rather, that`s how they operated in the

1990`s. In recent years that thinking as changed quite a bit, and it

appears WotC has too since they`ve experimented with smaller campaign

settings, and it looks like they`ve found them to be profitable. At least,

they continue to release them.



>If you use straight 3rd edition rules, your potential audience is everyone

>who plays with those rules and has access to your product (in our case,

>anyone with an internet connection). Things like books of spells,

>prestige classes, and monsters have done rather well in this vein.



>When you stray from baseline rules, your potential audience is everyone

>who plays with the baseline rules, has access to your product, and is

>willing to either adapt their game to your rules, or rewrite the stats of

>your product to work with their baseline game. Logically, this is a

>subset of the first group, and probably smaller.



By this logic wouldn`t it be better to go for a D20 market so that the

potential market is everyone who plays those rules. You would, therefore,

add anyone who had seen D20 Modern, Traveller D20, CoC, WoT, etc. and all

those campaign settings that fall under that category of rules. If the

strategy here is to reach as broad an audience as possible limiting things

to 3e is going to eliminate a large portion of the market. Why limit the

market from D20 to 3e and then to BR when one could eliminate that middle

step and, therefore, apply to a larger market?



From a marketing standpoint, releasing something within the 3e share means

not only going after a smaller overall market, but sharing that market with

existing 3e products like the monsterous FR and GH settings that dominate

that smaller share. Overall, it`s not a very sound plan if the goal is to

reach a broader market or to get a larger share of an existing one. That

WotC can make a profit off of core texts does not mean that the market

would be bigger for BR 3e rather than BR D20. In fact, it`s the kind of

fraction of a fraction that leads to more of a downward spiral than an

increased share. As a more different D20 product we`d get a smaller amount

of the 3e market (though I think the decrease would be negligible) but

expand into the broader D20 market.



Gary

[QuestingMage]

IMHO, Birthright is more different than any other D&D setting. Greyhawk and Forgotten Realms are quite close in terms of focus and philosophy. Ravenloft and Dark Sun go for the horror/dark future segments, but still focus on the core fighter/mage/cleric/rouge roleplaying combo of individual character development.

Developing a nation requires a different mindset than developing a character. Maybe some Magic players would be interested in Birthright, even though they&#39;re not really interested in core D&D.

Total sales of Birthright = Sum of (size of audience sub n * Prob sub n that a given audience member will buy BR) from i to n, where n is the number of discrete audiences exposed to Birthright. Don&#39;t forget the probability of purchasing, given knowledge of existence of BirthtRight.

"The time has come. To. Claim. Your. Birthright&#33;"

PS are formulas supported in the forums?

[geeman]

At 04:45 PM 9/2/2003 -0400, Daniel McSorley wrote:



>The implementation of clerics is totally irrelevant to the flavor of the

>setting. They used speciality clerics in 2nd edition because that was the

>2nd edition rule set. There`s nothing especially birthright-ish about

>specialty priests. It`s pretty much coincidense that they`re associated

>with the setting, because that happened to be the way Wizards was

>describing religions when BR was published.

>

>Had Birthright originally been published in 2001, Wizards would have

>spec`ed out the religions using domains and the 3rd edition versions of

>clerics, and when fourth edition came out in aught-six, all of us crusty

>old-timers would have been complaining that "domains and spell preparation

>are a necessary part of the flavor of birthright, I can`t believe they

>want to change clerics to use these spell-points from fourth edition."



I don`t think this is really an example of old-timers complaining about

change. The complaint is not the 3e dynamic alone, but that it`s not

particularly apt for BR. There are plenty of 3e mechanics that make more

sense than the 2e mechanics for BR. In fact, I`d say that 3e is overall a

better system to reflect BR than 2e was. (An even more generalized D20

approach would be even better IMO.) If it was the complaint of old-timers

we`d be complaining about the 3e ability of clerics to spontaneously cast

healing spells or the changes to the druid`s special abilities (as a former

2e specialty priest) before the domain system came up. Those changes,

however, make some sense and fit into BR. As an old-timer, I particularly

like 3e`s spontaneous healing magic for BR since that features so nicely

into the human justification for their dominance. Very nice indeed.



I do, however, disagree with the suggestion that 3e generalist cleric and

their domains with granted powers is one of those improvements upon 2e in

regards to BR, and that such powers are incidental or irrelevant to the

setting. The 2e specialty priest and spheres is a better way to go to

describe both themes of the setting both in terms of role-playing those

character classes and actual game mechanical changes to reflect their

differences from one another. At least, it`s a better suggestion IMO than

any others so far. There is the occasional post from someone who prefers

previous editions of the system, but I`ve never been one of those

folks. If someone comes up with a system that is even better at reflecting

the dynamics of BR priesthood than a 3e version of the 2e specialty/sphere

system then I`d be all for that.



The most important aspect of this, though, is that regardless of whether

such class descriptions are called "specialty priest" in 2e style or not

some changes to make them more particular to BR using 3e rules is very

easily justified using the 3e text on changing character classes. No one

has yet written up any 3e versions of the BR priests yet, but I for one do

NOT think we should replicate the 2e version`s special abilities since they

were often out of balance. 3e versions of the specialty priests could have

spell lists (like spheres) and some different abilities, but I wouldn`t

make them as broad as they were originally written. They should be 3e

versions of the BR priesthood, with 3e powers and abilities, casting spells

in the 3e manner and using 3e`s own system of guidelines (or maybe even a

better more articulated set...) as the basis for those changes.



Gary

[RaspK_FOG]

The most important aspect of this, though, is that regardless of whether such class descriptions are called "specialty priest" in 2e style or not
some changes to make them more particular to BR using 3e rules is very easily justified using the 3e text on changing character classes. No one has yet written up any 3e versions of the BR priests yet, but I for one do NOT think we should replicate the 2e version`s special abilities since they were often out of balance. 3e versions of the specialty priests could have spell lists (like spheres) and some different abilities, but I wouldn`t make them as broad as they were originally written. They should be 3e versions of the BR priesthood, with 3e powers and abilities, casting spells in the 3e manner and using 3e`s own system of guidelines (or maybe even a better more articulated set...) as the basis for those changes.

Apart from this wonderful post, I have to point out my answer on the replies I got. About clerics and their spells per day being equal to that of a specialised wizard:

We, here, are not only discussing variants for the BRCS, we are also talking about a new campaign; if you that a step further, we are considering things we can actually change from the core rules&#33;

I really cannot accept the argument that providing a variant Cleric/Priest/whatever you like to call him, her, or the little child sitting in the corner, would actually narrow the list of people who will be interested in Birthright&#33; I mean, Dragonlance also has their very different Cleric figures, calling them Mystics, I think, and I am talking about a WotC product&#33; Not to mention Oriental Adventures and Rokugan...

So, I, for one, simply have experienced the fact that clerics are truly too good as they currently are: they can cast most healing spells (except for some strange, druidic ones), some even of necromantic nature; they have very few harmful spells, but these few are really powerful (like harm, which even in 3.5 makes the person who is so harmed wince when he realises what is going on); can wear heavy armour with no problem (apart from armour check penalties), and fight considerably well (in fact, bludgeoning weapons rarely receive a reduction to damage [apart from Birthright dwarves, actually ;) ], unlike piercing and slashing weapons who have their damage regularly halved).

And they still get the same spells a specialised wizard gets&#33; No more, no less. In fact, and as they currently are, I really see no point why shouldn&#39;t have the same number of spells per dayb as a the druid, except that one of these spells per level should be a domain spell (aka, lose the extra advantage they have over wizards)&#33;

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by kgauck@Sep 1 2003, 06:58 PM
----- Original Message -----

From: "irdeggman" <brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET>

Sent: Monday, September 01, 2003 5:40 PM





> I tend to find that the discussion over specialty priesthoods seems

> to revolve more around power-gaming than flavor.



I would say that reducing the spell list by removing a large number of

spells is hardly the conventional definition of powergaming. I would say

that constructing specialty classes to support good roleplay. Take the Vos

and their gods, they rejected Vorynn and knowledge, so why would they be

able to cast divinations?



Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com













Because it revolves around what one priest can do and another cannot. That is to say a "positioning" of power amongst the different priesthoods that is utilized by players. I predict that the next step in this path will be to "address" the granted abilities that they had in 2nd ed.

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by geeman@Sep 2 2003, 06:26 PM
By this logic wouldn`t it be better to go for a D20 market so that the

potential market is everyone who plays those rules. You would, therefore,

add anyone who had seen D20 Modern, Traveller D20, CoC, WoT, etc. and all

those campaign settings that fall under that category of rules. If the

strategy here is to reach as broad an audience as possible limiting things

to 3e is going to eliminate a large portion of the market. Why limit the

market from D20 to 3e and then to BR when one could eliminate that middle

step and, therefore, apply to a larger market?



From a marketing standpoint, releasing something within the 3e share means

not only going after a smaller overall market, but sharing that market with

existing 3e products like the monsterous FR and GH settings that dominate

that smaller share. Overall, it`s not a very sound plan if the goal is to

reach a broader market or to get a larger share of an existing one. That

WotC can make a profit off of core texts does not mean that the market

would be bigger for BR 3e rather than BR D20. In fact, it`s the kind of

fraction of a fraction that leads to more of a downward spiral than an

increased share. As a more different D20 product we`d get a smaller amount

of the 3e market (though I think the decrease would be negligible) but

expand into the broader D20 market.


Unfortunately there is no such thing as a d20 core product.

History shows that when Wizards developed D&D that D&D and d20 were considered synonymous. Thus the “requirement” that any d20 product use the “core” D&D books as a basis (i.e., 3.0 PHB, MM and DMG). As time went by they (Wizards) realized that this d20 thing was much broader in application and they introduced several other d20 product lines, e.g., Star Wars, d20 Modern, Wheel of Time. These other product lines didn’t require the use of the D&D books and were self-contained.

I have wondered why Wizards has not published a core d20 rulebook. This book would contain the mechanics of d20 (higher is better, skills, feats, classes (although not necessarily include any core classes just examples), prestige classes, saving throws, etc.) but would not include any product specific items like D&D’s armor and magic system or Star Wars’ damage reduction and Force Points systems. This product would increase d20’s appeal and only require a single core book that would be more readily exportable into any new d20 product published and yet still have Wizards maintain control over the mechanic.


An example of a d20 product that suffered because of this D&D equals d20 issue is Deadlands d20. The “rules” required that the players have copies of the D&D PHB in order to play the game whether or not they played any D&D style games. It has led to the publisher abandoning the d20 mechanic and switching to their own mechanic sometime next year. OK, another driving force is just pure profit, if they own the mechanic they don’t rely on another company’s good grace to use it. But the point is still valid, if Wizards had published a core d20 rulebook it would have made this type of transition less palatable.


Oh yeah and legally we are not authorized to create our own d20 system. The only one that has created alternate (to D&D) d20 systems is the owner of the d20 system itself - WotC. Even Monte Cook&#39;s published stuff is really an "alternate" but still uses the core D&D rules (he has to or get direct Wizards overview and approval of his products).

[Mourn]

I mean, Dragonlance also has their very different Cleric figures, calling them Mystics, I think, and I am talking about a WotC product&#33;

The Mystic is an addition to the rules, not a restriction. That is a key difference.

The game should be about options, not restrictions. I should have choices upon choices upon choices, each unique and new and flavored with Birthright... I shouldn&#39;t be burdened with a laundry list of this that I am forbidden to do.

If I want to make an elven cleric, the rules shouldn&#39;t tell me I can&#39;t. The book should mention that elves, as a people, do not worship any deities, but it should not deny me the ability to be an elven cleric.

[Mourn]

An example of a d20 product that suffered because of this D&D equals d20 issue is Deadlands d20. The “rules” required that the players have copies of the D&D PHB in order to play the game whether or not they played any D&D style games. It has led to the publisher abandoning the d20 mechanic and switching to their own mechanic sometime next year. OK, another driving force is just pure profit, if they own the mechanic they don’t rely on another company’s good grace to use it. But the point is still valid, if Wizards had published a core d20 rulebook it would have made this type of transition less palatable.

Deadlands had its own system before it went d20. It went d20 because of the fact that d20 is a well known system, and that will draw more of an audience. The publisher has not abandoned the d20 system, but it hasn&#39;t abandoned its original system either. All Deadlands products will be dual-statted, with d20 and original rules.

The only reason the product suffers poor sales is that it isn&#39;t as popular as others.

And noone has to rely on Wizards&#39; "good graces" to use the SRD and OGL. They made it public and now they cannot revoke it. They could choose to never again update the SRD and OGL, but they cannot take it back.

And they did publish a core d20 book for everyone to use... they published four of them, in fact... they&#39;re the core rulebooks of Dungeons and Dragons... and d20 Modern. The SRDs are the "core books" for everyone to use.

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by Mourn@Sep 3 2003, 06:16 AM

And noone has to rely on Wizards&#39; "good graces" to use the SRD and OGL. They made it public and now they cannot revoke it. They could choose to never again update the SRD and OGL, but they cannot take it back.

And they did publish a core d20 book for everyone to use... they published four of them, in fact... they&#39;re the core rulebooks of Dungeons and Dragons... and d20 Modern. The SRDs are the "core books" for everyone to use.
Unless I am drastically mistaken only the D&D core 3 books are OGL. Star Wars, d20 Modern, Wheel of Time are not.

And yes, people are still at Wizards&#39; good graces to use them since they (Wizards) can at any time revise (see 3.0 to 3.5) or no longer publish updates or otherwise support, the core products.

This is precisely the reason, that and the licensing cost and potential market being small, that no publisher has picked up Birthright - Wizards has insisted upon maintaining the right (solely) to publish the core book and relinquishing control of only the "other" products to the company.

[DanMcSorley]

On Wed, 3 Sep 2003, irdeggman wrote:

> Unless I am drastically mistaken only the D&D core 3 books are OGL.

> Star Wars, d20 Modern, Wheel of Time are not.



d20 modern has its own SRD released, just like regular D&D.



> And yes, people are still at Wizards` good graces to use them since

> they (Wizards) can at any time revise (see 3.0 to 3.5) or no longer

> publish updates or otherwise support, the core products.



They can`t take away the ability to use the SRD, though. And yeah,

they`re going to stop publishing the three core books real soon now.

Really.



--

Daniel McSorley

[DanMcSorley]

On Wed, 3 Sep 2003, irdeggman wrote:

> Oh yeah and legally we are not authorized to create our own d20 system.

> The only one that has created alternate (to D&D) d20 systems is the

> owner of the d20 system itself - WotC. Even Monte Cook`s published

> stuff is really an "alternate" but still uses the core D&D

> rules (he has to or get direct Wizards overview and approval of his

> products).



No he doesn`t. He releases them under the OGL, just like Green Ronin`s

Mutants and Masterminds, or that Big Eyes Small Mouth d20 game, or any of

the other games that are OGLed.



--

Daniel McSorley

[kgauck]

----- Original Message -----

From: "irdeggman" <brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET>

Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 4:42 AM



> Because it revolves around what one priest can do and another

> cannot. That is to say a "positioning" of power amongst

> the different priesthoods that is utilized by players. I predict that the

> next step in this path will be to "address" the granted

> abilities that they had in 2nd ed.



So. Take a look at my conversions (and I did my conversions for the

relevant priesthoods about a year ago IMC), I have the whole setup. Limited

spell lists, limited armor use, limited weapon lists, granted powers,

Overall the characters are slightly weaker, but I think they make a lot more

sense. They are easier to play because the character`s power and weaknesses

reflect the principles of the god, which is a nice substitute to handing the

players a couple pages of theology.



Things that revolve around mechanics are mechanical questions. The

reference to powergaming was a attack on the motives of those of us who

prefer specialist priests. In the cliche division of players into

catacgories, taking a weaker, but better defined character would be the

roleplayer. Its those who want all the powers all the time (why are priests

of Ruornil wearing armor?) that are the powergamers.



Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

[Birthright-L]

> Unless I am drastically mistaken only the D&D core 3 books are OGL. Star Wars, d20 Modern, Wheel of Time are not.



d20Modern, at least, is in every way meant to be a "core rulebook" in the

same manner you seem to refer to D&D as a core rulebook. Many d20 products

are now listing either Dungeons & Dragons or d20Modern for their d20

requirement.



I actually think d20Modern might be a better core rulebook for Birthright,

than Dungeons & Dragons, as modern games tend to be made for themes

involving conspiracy and intrigue and involve characters that have wealth

and power, and often very little access to magical items. I`ve found many

of the specific mechanics of d20Modern to be very appropriate for Birthright

games, whereas many of the exclusive Dungeons & Dragons mechanics (classes,

skills, treasure, etc.) have dissapointed me.



Wheel of Time and Star Wars are not OGL, mostly because of copyright

restrictions on specific campaign material and so forth. There was some

talk of eventually stripping out all of Jordon`s stuff and releasing a Wheel

of Time SRD because a lot of people liked the rules and mechanics in there,

but I don`t know what ever became of that.



-Lord Rahvin

[Birthright-L]

irdeggman writes:



> History shows that when Wizards developed D&D that D&D and d20 were considered synonymous. Thus the “requirement” that any d20 product use the “core” D&D books as a basis (i.e., 3.0 PHB, MM and DMG). As time went by they (Wizards) realized that this d20 thing was much broader in application and they introduced several other d20 product lines, e.g., Star Wars, d20 Modern, Wheel of Time. These other product lines didn’t require the use of the D&D books and were self-contained.



True, and I happen to like self-contained d20 products. Obviously, our

tastes differ in this area.

d20Modern does not require the use of D&D, nor any books in D&D because it

itself is a core d20 book. During the "historical period" in which you

refer, yes d20 and D&D were synonymous, but that`s not the case anymore.

D&D is just one particular subset of the overall concept that is d20.







> I have wondered why Wizards has not published a core d20 rulebook. This book would contain the mechanics of d20 (higher is better, skills, feats, classes (although not necessarily include any core classes just examples), prestige classes, saving throws, etc.) but would not include any product specific items like D&D’s armor and magic system or Star Wars’ damage reduction and Force Points systems. This product would increase d20’s appeal and only require a single core book that would be more readily exportable into any new d20 product published and yet still have Wizards maintain control over the mechanic.



Wotc already said whoever wants to publish the SRD is free to do so, if they

want. It just wouldn`t really make any money because people could get it

for free, so you`d have to include a lot of specific campaign-type material

such as in the D&D books.





> An example of a d20 product that suffered because of this D&D equals d20 issue is Deadlands d20. The “rules” required that the players have copies of the D&D PHB in order to play the game whether or not they played any D&D style games. It has led to the publisher abandoning the d20 mechanic and switching to their own mechanic sometime next year. OK, another driving force is just pure profit, if they own the mechanic they don’t rely on another company’s good grace to use it. But the point is still valid, if Wizards had published a core d20 rulebook it would have made this type of transition less palatable.



I personally don`t see the appeal of having a "core d20 rulebook" without

any classes, races, prestige classes, skills, generic feats, and basic

utilitarian equipment, with no unique features whatsoever (like bloodlines

and domain rules...)



> Oh yeah and legally we are not authorized to create our own d20 system. The only one that has created alternate (to D&D) d20 systems is the owner of the d20 system itself - WotC. Even Monte Cook`s published stuff is really an "alternate" but still uses the core D&D rules (he has to or get direct Wizards overview and approval of his products).



Isn`t that the whole point of the OGL in the first place? Wotc has said

numerous times that they`d like the system to expand and grow with the

participation of independant d20 publishers.



If you`re refering to "we" in regards to "the BRCS Birthright team" that may

be something else entirely, but otherwise I think you`re missing most of the

point of the whole d20 movement.



---



As a side note, I think most of the spells in the PHB are relavent to

Birthright. Nothing I can think of in the combat chapter needs to be

ommitted, but perhaps some of it could be expanded in regards to mass combat

and skirmish combat. The "experience point" and "level up" concept doesn`t

need to much tweaking, and the basic process of "What is an ability score?"

doesn`t need to be rewritten. Neither does the intro to roleplaying. The

basic concepts of hit dice and saving throws don`t need to be recreated, and

most if not all of the combat statistics of monsters can be kept, even if

the actual monsters are not.



Even if we write up all new races, classes, magical items, wealth systems,

equipment chapters, access to magic, feats, skills, special abilities,

domain rules, mass combat, bloodlines, etc. all from scratch, we should

still need to include a reference to needing D&D, d20Modern, or any version

of the core d20 rules put out by Wizards of the Coast to play the game

because in all honesty, without that, our "from scratch" product isn`t

complete. Wotc would be perfectly happy with this -- plenty of other

products do a lot less than this (some actually go so far as to reference

which specific 9 or 10 pages you`ll need out of the PHB and DMG).



Of course, all of our "from scratch" material would be OGL so as to better

accomodate the d20 community, including Wizards of the Coast if, for

whatever reason, Forgotten Realms needs a new mass combat system in their

Bloodlines of Faerun expansion.



-Lord Rahvin

[doom]

On Tue, Sep 02, 2003 at 09:46:43PM -0700, Gary wrote:

> I don`t think this is really an example of old-timers complaining about

> change. The complaint is not the 3e dynamic alone, but that it`s not

> particularly apt for BR. [snip]

> The 2e specialty priest and spheres is a better way to go to

> describe both themes of the setting both in terms of role-playing those

> character classes and actual game mechanical changes to reflect their

> differences from one another.



I`m split down the middle on this issue.



I agree that a "focused and relevant" list of spells appropriate to

each god maintains the BR flavor far better than does the default d20

cleric. The default d20 cleric is (by design) very generic - designed

to represent anything from the worshipper of a single god, an entire

pantheon, or even an abstract ideal.



However, I also agree that diverging from the standard d20 cleric has

many potential pitfalls. Limiting clerics spell casting abilities is

thematically appropriate for BR, but may have unforsee concequences

in terms of overall game balance for the class.



Given that there is strong justification for both positions, I think

that including the sphere-based limited spell lists appropriate for

each god as a variant off of the base d20 system rules is an excellent

suggested addition to the BRCS. Clearly many people would use it.



Has anyone created a "sphere-based" list of 3.5 spells? If someone

sends such a list to me, I`ll do my best to clean it up and try to

get in included in the next draft.



- Doom

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by doom@Sep 4 2003, 11:16 AM

Given that there is strong justification for both positions, I think

that including the sphere-based limited spell lists appropriate for

each god as a variant off of the base d20 system rules is an excellent

suggested addition to the BRCS. Clearly many people would use it.



Has anyone created a "sphere-based" list of 3.5 spells? If someone

sends such a list to me, I`ll do my best to clean it up and try to

get in included in the next draft.



- Doom













Here&#39;s a question - how would the spontaneous casting of cure spells be handled if not all of the clerics get them? If not all clerics get healing spells to the same degree (some not at all) then this "class" benefit is not balanced and some clerics would benefit more than would others.

This is one of the few benefits that 3/3.5 clerics get and most probably the reason that they now have less spells per day to cast than they did in 2nd ed.

Just one of the "consequences" that would need ironing out.

[ryancaveney]

On Thu, 4 Sep 2003, irdeggman wrote:



> how would the spontaneous casting of cure spells

> be handled if not all of the clerics get them?



There are two options which immediately suggest themselves to me.



One is easiest: drop it entirely. Clerics must prepare all spells.



The other is more interesting: change which kinds of spells can be cast

spontaneously case by case. That is, each religion will have its own

"signature" spells, which represent things particularly strongly

associated with the god. Some will be able to heal spontaneously, others

use fire or cold or knowledge or trickery or other sorts of spells

spontaneously instead of healing. The most straightforward way to write

this into the 3e rules is to say that instead of being able to substitute

spontaneous healing for any spell slot, clerics can substitute spontaneous

spells from one of their chosen domains (one because healing is only one

domain; I suppose both might also work, but then Nesirie could get healing

and one other domain). Like negative vs. positive energy, which domain

they will be able to use spontaneously should probably be chosen upon

taking the first level of cleric.



I think I prefer the second option. Helps achieve my goal of making them

more obviously different from each other and more closely tied to their

god`s portfolio. Thanks for bringing this up -- I think this resolution

of the issue actually makes more sense to use in all of 3e at large than

the default PHB rule does.





Ryan Caveney

[Birthright-L]

> Here`s a question - how would the spontaneous casting of cure spells be handled if not all of the clerics get them? If not all clerics get healing spells to the same degree (some not at all) then this "class" benefit is not balanced and some clerics would benefit more than would others.

>

> This is one of the few benefits that 3/3.5 clerics get and most probably the reason that they now have less spells per day to cast than they did in 2nd ed.

>

> Just one of the "consequences" that would need ironing out.





This kind of trails on from another thread, but I believe it is a core theme

in BR that (at least) one major reason the humans "won" the war against the

elves was because of their plentiful healing magic, wherein the elves had

none (or little).



This is one area where 3e actually works pretty well to reflect Birthright,

wherein the clerical advantage really is, in a direct way, a healing

advantage. Thematically, there`s no real reason to change it. Yes, it`s

nice to be customizable but although some clerics had easier access to

healing than others, for the most part, cleric equals healing to most

players, and also apparently to the writers when designing Birthright

history.



It would make far more sense to me to leave spontaneous casting the way it

is for clerics (although 3.5 gives us a humorous precedent for changing it).

Rather, I beleive our specialization could focus on spell lists, domains,

and the "turn undead" special ability.



Does anyone particularly like the way domains currently work in regards to

bonus spells and spell list customization? I might suggest simply dropping

the idea of "domain spells" in their traditional sense altogether and just

assume a simpler (but similiar) method in which your chosen domain

determines your entire spell list and your special ability. Thus, you could

completely cutomize your abilities and spells by choosing two (or even

three) domains ("spell lists" with special abilities) based on a list for

each priesthood and/or deity. Spontaneous casting would still work the same

way, even though some characters might not even have healing spells on their

domain spell lists (sort of representing what was previously "minor" access

to healing).



As far as specialized clerics go, spontaneous casting of healing spells is

the worst thing to be changing. There are better areas to focus on: spell

lists, turning abilities, proficiencies, skills, combat statistics, etc...



-Lord Rahvin

[Birthright-L]

> However, I also agree that diverging from the standard d20 cleric has

> many potential pitfalls. Limiting clerics spell casting abilities is

> thematically appropriate for BR, but may have unforsee concequences

> in terms of overall game balance for the class.



My idea for domain-like spell lists came from this very problem here. It

was so much easier to balance out a dozen or so spells against eachother

than to balance out different classes with different spellcasting

availability, combat statistics, etc.



So what I`m currently trying to do is make small spell lists that you can

customize your character with, and then apply some kind of special ability

with each spell list, like domains. Thus, its easier to see when one spell

list is "weaker" than another, and then easily compensate by changing spells

or granting a better special ability to the "weaker" spell list. As always,

the hard part is trying to apply a game-balancing factor to judge when one

list is more versatile than another list as opposed to powerful and

determine the necessary balance judgement. It`s hard. I hate spell lists.

I`m never quite happy with the results, whether I do it or Wotc does.



-Lord Rahvin

[kgauck]

I have always been a partisan of channeling for priests, so that all of them

cast all of their spells spontaneously.



Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

[geeman]

At 09:43 PM 9/4/2003 +0200, Irdeggmen wrote:



> Here`s a question - how would the spontaneous casting of cure spells be

> handled if not all of the clerics get them? If not all clerics get

> healing spells to the same degree (some not at all) then this

> "class" benefit is not balanced and some clerics would benefit

> more than would others.

>

> This is one of the few benefits that 3/3.5 clerics get and most probably

> the reason that they now have less spells per day to cast than they did

> in 2nd ed.

>

> Just one of the "consequences" that would need ironing out.



My first inclination would be to give it to all Cerilian priests--even

druids, replacing their 3.5 ability to spontaneously summon animals--since

in BR they are not an independent class but specialty version of 2e

clerics, and since the healing nature of divine spells is one of the things

the setting seems to put so much of humanity`s faith into.



However, one could make it similar to the ability to turn undead, and give

it to some "specialty priests" and not to others if that would make

sense. Converting spells automatically might not, for instance, be the

best interpretation of Kreisha`s clergy. That is, of course,

post-Deismaar, so a little tweaking with such priests might be apt.



Gary

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by geeman@Sep 5 2003, 04:17 AM


However, one could make it similar to the ability to turn undead, and give

it to some "specialty priests" and not to others if that would make

sense. Converting spells automatically might not, for instance, be the

best interpretation of Kreisha`s clergy. That is, of course,

post-Deismaar, so a little tweaking with such priests might be apt.



Gary


Evil clerics spontaneously cast "inflict" spells instead of "cure" spells. "Inflict" spells actually cure undead. IMO this works very well for Kreisha&#39;s clerics and that other Vos deity, what&#39;s his name ;) ?

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by Birthright-L@Sep 4 2003, 08:00 PM
Does anyone particularly like the way domains currently work in regards to

bonus spells and spell list customization? I might suggest simply dropping

the idea of "domain spells" in their traditional sense altogether and just

assume a simpler (but similiar) method in which your chosen domain

determines your entire spell list and your special ability. Thus, you could

completely cutomize your abilities and spells by choosing two (or even

three) domains ("spell lists" with special abilities) based on a list for

each priesthood and/or deity. Spontaneous casting would still work the same

way, even though some characters might not even have healing spells on their

domain spell lists (sort of representing what was previously "minor" access

to healing).



As far as specialized clerics go, spontaneous casting of healing spells is

the worst thing to be changing. There are better areas to focus on: spell

lists, turning abilities, proficiencies, skills, combat statistics, etc...



-Lord Rahvin


Each Domain has exactly 9 spells in it no more and no less, excluding advancement to Epic level. Some spells can be in more than one domain.

Giving Clerics spells based upon the domains that their deity grants would give each cleric 4 spells of each level (assuming that the deity has 4 domains) and no 0-level spells. If you expand this list to include all of the clerical spells that don&#39;t have a domain (not included in your quoted statement), you include the 0-level spells and some others, but will most notably exclude all the cure spells from general access.

This is a topic you keep bringing up and I have become convinced of one of two things:

(1) Either you have already rewritten your entire spell list so that the domains have become blurred (and increased in scope) and are using this as your reference line

or

(2) That you are misreading the text in the PHB and confusing "descriptors" with "domains". For example

Cure Light Wounds
Conjuration (healing) {Descriptor}
Brd 1, Clr 1, Drd 1, Healing 1, Pal 1, Rgr 1 {Healing used here is the Domain}

I&#39;m not trying to be argumentative, or insulting, but I see the continuous flaw in this logic of using domains as the basis for a clerics spell list and no explanation around it.

[geeman]

At 11:30 AM 9/5/2003 +0200, irdeggman wrote:



>
<>

> However, one could make it similar to the ability to turn undead, and

> give<>

> it to some "specialty priests" and not to others if that would

> make<>

> sense. Converting spells automatically might not, for instance, be the<>

> best interpretation of Kreisha`s clergy. That is, of course,<>

> post-Deismaar, so a little tweaking with such priests might be apt.<>

>

> Evil clerics spontaneously cast "inflict" spells instead of

> "cure" spells. "Inflict" spells actually cure

> undead. IMO this works very well for Kreisha`s clerics and that other

> Vos deity, what`s his name ;) ?



Yeah, Kreisha`s priesthood is not the best example in the world. What I

was trying to get at, though, was that spontaneous casting could be treated

like turning undead or some other class feature. Some Cerilian priests

might have it and others not. It needn`t necessarily be something that all

BR priests can do.



Gary

[Birthright-L]

> Each Domain has exactly 9 spells in it no more and no less, excluding advancement to Epic level. Some spells can be in more than one domain.

>

snip more rules...



> This is a topic you keep bringing up and I have become convinced of one of two things:

>

> (1) Either you have already rewritten your entire spell list so that the domains have become blurred (and increased in scope) and are using this as your reference line

>

> or

>

> (2) That you are misreading the text in the PHB and confusing "descriptors" with "domains". For example

>

> Cure Light Wounds

> Conjuration (healing) {Descriptor}

> Brd 1, Clr 1, Drd 1, Healing 1, Pal 1, Rgr 1 {Healing used here is the Domain}



> I`m not trying to be argumentative, or insulting, but I see the continuous flaw in this logic of using domains as the basis for a clerics spell list and no explanation around it.



Okay, that`s cool. I`m not insulted at all. Clearly, I wasn`t being clear

and I appreciate you pointing it out. I`ll try to clarify. For future

reference though, and you have every right to ignore this if you want, it

really, really annoys me when someone responds to a rule change by quoting

the way the existing rules work, as in your "Each domain has exactly..."

quote above. I don`t know if others feel this way or if this is just a pet

peeve of mine. It might have been helpful and more generally polite to

mention that there seems to be a flaw in logic early on, and then elaborate

by examples of current rules. Just so you know. It`s more my problem than

yours; I just felt I should mention it for the sake of our continued

discussions since you particularly tend to start your posts by quoting rules

to me. I realise why you`d think I don`t know them very well since I don`t

quote them often and I make rather untraditional suggestions, but I am quite

versed in 3e and d20 lore.



But anyway, on to the point...



My use of the word domains was incorrect, yes, because I was using it in a

redefined manner. I thought I made that clear, but I guess not. So I

wasn`t talking about 3e domains. 3e domains just happened to be the closest

equivilent to what I was talking about, hence my (clearly unsuccessful)

attempt to redefine them. Since I can`t use the words domain,

specializations, spell list, or even sphere of influence without causing

misunderstanding, I guess I`ll use the term Clerical Focus for now, just to

be clear.



At some point, probably at first level, a cleric (or even non-cleric,

depending on how it works out in the end) may choose a Clerical Focus for

his character. He`ll either choose two or three at first level or else

acquire more when he levels up (maybe one every six levels or so). Each

Clerical Focus gives him access to a unique spell list and a special

ability. These are not "bonus spells", these are literally the list of

spells he has access to. There are no (or few) general cleric spells. Each

god or even each priesthood has a list of Clerical Focii to choose from.



I don`t really want to argue on specifics yet, but just to give you an idea

of what it would look like...



__Shadow Focus

__Gods (and Priesthoods): Eleole (any)

__Granted Power: Hide in Plain Sight

__Spell List:

_______1st: Bane, Cause Fear, Command, Doom, Invisibility to Undead,

Obscuring Mist, Sanctuary,

_______2nd: etc...

_______3rd: etc...



__Life Focus

__Gods (and Priesthoods): Rournil and Haelyn (any)

__Granted Power: Turn Undead

__Spell List:

_______1st: Bless, Bless Water, Cure Light Wounds, Detect Undead, Divine

Favor, Magic Weapon, Protection from Evil, Shield of Faith.

_______2nd: etc...

_______3rd: etc...



__War Focus

__Gods (and Priesthoods): Haelyn, Curiecien

__Granted Power: Rage

__Spell List:

_______1st: Bless, Bane, Cause Fear, Deathwatch, Entropic Shield, Inflict

Light Wounds, Magic Weapon, Shield of Faith

_______2nd: etc...

_______3rd: etc...





I hope that clears things up a little bit.



-Lord Rahvin

[DanMcSorley]

On Fri, 5 Sep 2003, Gary wrote:

> Yeah, Kreisha`s priesthood is not the best example in the world. What I

> was trying to get at, though, was that spontaneous casting could be treated

> like turning undead or some other class feature. Some Cerilian priests

> might have it and others not. It needn`t necessarily be something that all

> BR priests can do.



Spontaneous casting of healing spells shouldn`t be done away with. It

makes clerics playable. One comment I saw elsewhere summed it up nicely:

"I learned to play in second edition. The party needed a cleric, so I

rolled one up. The other guys told me that the only 1st level cleric

spell was Cure Light Wounds. When I looked at the others in the PHB, they

said those were just filler."



If the guy who plays the cleric has to memorize all healing spells, all

the time, it`s really boring for that player. But clerics are needed to

cast healing spells, it makes fights survivable especially at low levels.

Spontaneous casting lets cleric fill the medic role if needed, but also do

what he wants some of the time, rather than just what the party needs.



--

Daniel McSorley

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by Birthright-L@Sep 5 2003, 12:44 PM
Okay, that`s cool. I`m not insulted at all. Clearly, I wasn`t being clear

and I appreciate you pointing it out. I`ll try to clarify. For future

reference though, and you have every right to ignore this if you want, it

really, really annoys me when someone responds to a rule change by quoting

the way the existing rules work, as in your "Each domain has exactly..."

quote above. I don`t know if others feel this way or if this is just a pet

peeve of mine. It might have been helpful and more generally polite to

mention that there seems to be a flaw in logic early on, and then elaborate

by examples of current rules. Just so you know. It`s more my problem than

yours; I just felt I should mention it for the sake of our continued

discussions since you particularly tend to start your posts by quoting rules

to me. I realise why you`d think I don`t know them very well since I don`t

quote them often and I make rather untraditional suggestions, but I am quite

versed in 3e and d20 lore.



But anyway, on to the point...



My use of the word domains was incorrect, yes, because I was using it in a

redefined manner. I thought I made that clear, but I guess not. So I

wasn`t talking about 3e domains. 3e domains just happened to be the closest

equivilent to what I was talking about, hence my (clearly unsuccessful)

attempt to redefine them. Since I can`t use the words domain,

specializations, spell list, or even sphere of influence without causing

misunderstanding, I guess I`ll use the term Clerical Focus for now, just to

be clear.



At some point, probably at first level, a cleric (or even non-cleric,

depending on how it works out in the end) may choose a Clerical Focus for

his character. He`ll either choose two or three at first level or else

acquire more when he levels up (maybe one every six levels or so). Each

Clerical Focus gives him access to a unique spell list and a special

ability. These are not "bonus spells", these are literally the list of

spells he has access to. There are no (or few) general cleric spells. Each

god or even each priesthood has a list of Clerical Focii to choose from.



I don`t really want to argue on specifics yet, but just to give you an idea

of what it would look like...



__Shadow Focus

__Gods (and Priesthoods): Eleole (any)

__Granted Power: Hide in Plain Sight

__Spell List:

_______1st: Bane, Cause Fear, Command, Doom, Invisibility to Undead,

Obscuring Mist, Sanctuary,

_______2nd: etc...

_______3rd: etc...



__Life Focus

__Gods (and Priesthoods): Rournil and Haelyn (any)

__Granted Power: Turn Undead

__Spell List:

_______1st: Bless, Bless Water, Cure Light Wounds, Detect Undead, Divine

Favor, Magic Weapon, Protection from Evil, Shield of Faith.

_______2nd: etc...

_______3rd: etc...



__War Focus

__Gods (and Priesthoods): Haelyn, Curiecien

__Granted Power: Rage

__Spell List:

_______1st: Bless, Bane, Cause Fear, Deathwatch, Entropic Shield, Inflict

Light Wounds, Magic Weapon, Shield of Faith

_______2nd: etc...

_______3rd: etc...





I hope that clears things up a little bit.



-Lord Rahvin













It is clearer now. I&#39;ll try to start out with my point and support it afterwards from now on.

It makes more sense when laid out like this. My initial take is that this would better be served to create "new" classes for each of the priesthoods instead of trying to change the existing one is so many ways at once.

A class ability of "Clerical Focus" that allows access to the granted abilities specified would make a better flow. Each class would have its own spell list, etc. There could be some type of parallel to the 3.5 ranger&#39;s class abilities I think.

One of the problems I have with the core cleric is that it really has no level-based abilities. They have a spell progression but don&#39;t gain anything new after 1st level except spells. The sorcerer was similiar, but in 3.5 they added an ability to swap out a known spell for a different one and the abilities associated with their familiar are class level based.

The example abilities shown are more powerful than the typical domain granted ability and I think that needs to be a concern.

As far as communication goes I think that we need to realize that certain words and phrases have predefined meanings and it is probably best not to try to redefine them, especially since people new to the posts would be missing the background necessary to understand the "new" definition. :lol:

[Mark_Aurel]

Okay, that`s cool. I`m not insulted at all. Clearly, I wasn`t being clear
and I appreciate you pointing it out. I`ll try to clarify. For future
reference though, and you have every right to ignore this if you want, it
really, really annoys me when someone responds to a rule change by quoting
the way the existing rules work, as in your "Each domain has exactly..."
quote above. I don`t know if others feel this way or if this is just a pet
peeve of mine.

I tend to agree - that exact phenomenon *is* annoying, though there are a couple of clear exceptions:

1) The original poster obviously didn&#39;t understand the rules and was creating a house rule based on a lack of understanding of the basic rules;

2) The original poster was posting in his own little world, referencing his own house rules, without really bothering to explain that. This type of post has potential to be at least as annoying as any other type of post - it&#39;s really pointless to try to argue anything rationally with anyone that refuses to set up a common frame of reference.

[geeman]

At 01:58 PM 9/5/2003 -0400, Daniel McSorley wrote:



> > Yeah, Kreisha`s priesthood is not the best example in the world. What I

> > was trying to get at, though, was that spontaneous casting could be treated

> > like turning undead or some other class feature. Some Cerilian priests

> > might have it and others not. It needn`t necessarily be something that all

> > BR priests can do.

>

>Spontaneous casting of healing spells shouldn`t be done away with. It

>makes clerics playable. One comment I saw elsewhere summed it up nicely:

>"I learned to play in second edition. The party needed a cleric, so I

>rolled one up. The other guys told me that the only 1st level cleric

>spell was Cure Light Wounds. When I looked at the others in the PHB, they

>said those were just filler."



Like any other class ability, I think spontaneous casting should be up for

grabs when it comes to designing specific changes to the Cerilian

priesthood, and campaign themes should be considered the most significant

influence in determining whether or not the class has that feature. Upon

reflection probably the best example would be designing "specialty priests"

for two different situations. First, there`s changes to represent the

"witch doctor" or "shaman" character classes for the non-human

clergy. Priests of Moradin (dwarves) Kartothock (goblins) or Yeenoghu

(gnolls) and their ilk may not have the ability to spontaneously cast

healing spells, or an ability to cast spontaneous spells at all. Second,

is the case of priests who worship a Cerilian "demi-god" like the

Serpent. The human deities should probably all have the ability to

spontaneously cast healing spells.



While I could see having priests of either flavor gaining access to the

function of spontaneous casting of 3e, it`s less justified by the

campaign`s background material and descriptive text. The healing powers of

human divine spellcasters is less unique if non-human priests have access

to them, and while that ability does not alone really justify human

dominance all that well, if other species have the same access to it that

humans do then it makes even less sense that humans would _believe_ that

their divine spellcasters explain their supremacy when other races have

that ability too. It`s certainly possible to see that issue as a matter of

faith among the humans, but from a campaign standpoint it might be the

easier explanation to just not give that ability priests of non-human deities.



So the "specialty priest" cleric variants necessary would be one for each

of the human deities plus Moradin, Kartathok, Yeenoghu, Baphomet,

Kostchtchie, Torazan and the Serpent. For the monstrous "shaman" it would

be possible to just create a single variant class, meaning the overall

number of variations necessary would be 14. Eleven human plus dwarves, a

monstrous "shaman" class and the Serpent`s priesthood.



Can anyone think of others that might be necessary?



Gary

[Ariadne]

Originally posted by irdeggman@Sep 5 2003, 10:47 AM
Each Domain has exactly 9 spells in it no more and no less, excluding advancement to Epic level.
Not always. Sword and Sorcery has added own spells to their domains, so that these domains have 10 to 15 spells (two or more per level). Not Wotc "standard", but a nice and often used addition. :D

By the way a great example of variant rules...

[QuestingMage]

I&#39;m working on setting up a gaming group. I&#39;m partial to Birthright, but I&#39;m likely to be outvoted in favor of Forgotten Realms. Have any of you run/been in campaigns in a different setting which used bloodlines, regency, domains, etc? I&#39;m interested in hearing your experience with things like integrating the backstory, rules modifications, game balance, and anything else you found interesting about your campaign.

Thanks&#33;

[ConjurerDragon]

lordrahvin@SOFTHOME.NET schrieb:



>> Here`s a question - how would the spontaneous casting of cure spells

>> be handled if not all of the clerics get them? If not all clerics

>> get healing spells to the same degree (some not at all) then this

>> "class" benefit is not balanced and some clerics would

>> benefit more than would others.

>> This is one of the few benefits that 3/3.5 clerics get and most

>> probably the reason that they now have less spells per day to cast

>> than they did in 2nd ed.

>> Just one of the "consequences" that would need ironing out.

>

> This kind of trails on from another thread, but I believe it is a core

> theme

> in BR that (at least) one major reason the humans "won" the war

> against the

> elves was because of their plentiful healing magic, wherein the elves had

> none (or little).



That is no contradiction and access to healing magic need not be the

strongest advantage of humans in the elves war until then.

Before Deismaar we had other gods who as I assume where stronger than

the current ones - after all they spread a good part of their divined

essence over the country to be absorbed by those who would become scions

and this would mean that the current gods did not receive 100% of the

former gods power. So perhaps the 3E PHB cleric would be perfect in

pre-Deismaar games where much more powerful gods grant all those spells.



But the divined intervention of the gods need not to be forgotten -

healing of humans is nice but as said so often not critical seeing that

elves have access to true arcane magic and humans did not before

Deismaar. The new gods avatars are listed in the rulebook - and that

they have sworn not to take corporal form again and hesitate to

intervene personally (with the exception of Eloele) on Aebrynnis.

Assuming that that was very different before Deismaar with more powerful

Avatars could have more weight than human clerics healing alone.



bye

Michael

[Birthright-L]

> You can view the entire thread at:

> http://www.birthright.net/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=36&t=1876

> QuestingMage wrote:

> I`m working on setting up a gaming group. I`m partial to Birthright, but I`m likely to be outvoted in favor of Forgotten Realms. Have any of you run/been in campaigns in a different setting which used bloodlines, regency, domains, etc? I`m interested in hearing your experience with things like integrating the backstory, rules modifications, game balance, and anything else you found interesting about your campaign.

>

> Thanks&#33;





> I`m working on setting up a gaming group. I`m partial to Birthright, but I`m likely to be outvoted in favor of Forgotten Realms. Have any of you run/been in campaigns in a different setting which used bloodlines, regency, domains, etc? I`m interested in hearing your experience with things like integrating the backstory, rules modifications, game balance, and anything else you found interesting about your campaign.





I first was introduced to Birthright when looking for additional source

material to augment my Alkier campaign. Birthright provided a good basic

domain system for that purpose, that mostly didn`t need to be changed. The

biggest problem was that to implement the domain system for player

involvement, I had to create all the domains right away instead of only the

ones I`d needed; I couldn`t really add more later -- the map had to be

initially created and I had to create enough guilds, temples, and law

domains so as to never really lack for domains throughout the campaign life.

This didn`t work out so well, and I had to abandon the domain system for

this campaign. Since then, me and my group have done a lot of analysis on

the domain system and a lot of brainstorming on how alternate domain systems

would work.



Logistics was really the biggest problem. In an actual political

roleplaying game, there`s a lot of secrets and disinformation floating about

and that`s very, very hard to implement when you have domain rules to work

with. I`ve never successfully incorporated "covert holdings" for example,

in a satisfying way. The system just doesn`t really allow for it very well.

I still don`t really understand how DMs can play 20 or more NPC domains with

3 domain actions each and still keep track of RP and GB and military

deployment; the simple answer would be "don`t", but that just doesn`t seem

as fun then.



I found that applying statistics for things that exist in your campaign

world when the domain system is applied retroactively can be very fun. For

example, a prominant NPC from a previous adventure that hadn`t been heard

from in quite some time became the name of war unit, "Milderan`s Cavalry".

The players got a kick out of that. The site for the Battle of Burning Wood

became its own province with no civlization and low source levels, enhancing

the tragedy of that battle.



Creating a multi-campaign domain system out of Birthright-inspired material

is a long standing goal of mine, but I`ve since incorporated inspiration

from the Arya roleplaying game and the Alpha Centauri computer game, as

well. The basic idea is if it can`t incorporate Birthright, Dragonlance,

and Dark Sun all relatively easily, it`s not met its design goal as a

multi-campaign domain system. The project has suffered a major setback

since one of my players suggested that the same core domain system should

also be able to accomodate some sort of "space opera" star-empire games and

I`ve agreed with him, but have had difficulty organizing it. My four basic

goals of the system are to allow for customized campaign settings and

specific customized domains, to streamline the domain rules for easier play

both for players and DMs, to allow for greater flexibility in terms of

espianage and disinformation, and to apply a scaled interface with several

sections broken up into a sort of detailed version and quick-resolution

version. Of course, I don`t know yet how to do all of that, but those are

the goals.



Another strange conversion issue, and probably a more important one, is that

other campaigns have different assumptions than BR does as far as the

interaction of domain politics. I`m not talking about regency points and

bloodlines; those can be compensated for or rationalized. The biggest

problem is the holdings. Except for Dark Sun, Birthright, and certain

historical examples, I really don`t see why Temples should really be

represented all that high in the grand scheme of domain politics. They

don`t seem like they should be holdings at all, and they certainly shouldn`t

raise armies and cast realm spells. Source holdings are a little strange,

but most people just make some kind of Magic Academy holding as a

quick-and-dirty conversion. My own Alkier campaign had a lot of law

domains, and BR doesn`t seem to have any.



Birthright is centrally organized around the old "four basic classes",

concentrating on characters that exactly fit the archetypes of fighters,

wizards, clerics, and thieves. Other campaigns won`t mold around this so

easily and so there`s some work to be done on the holdings. For my own

campaign, it was easier for me to abstract the holdings into Political

Holdings (basically law holdings), Social Holdings (temples, theaters,

press, etc.), Economic Holdings (guilds, banks, natural resources), and

Magical Holdings (labs, libraries, monsters, spellcasters, items) and remove

any overlap in their functions (so nothing makes money besides Economic

Holdings, for example). As a result there were no single-holding domains,

but all domains were a small mix of all holdings resulting in fewer domains

overall and more competition among them. It worked out fairly well. If I

do it again, I`ll include the specialty holding system in there using the

Domain Expansion that I posted up awhile ago to help flesh it out and make

it less abstract. I also feel that important blooded nobles should be

represented at the domain level better than just lieutenant and I need to

think of way to do that.



Good luck with your conversion. Let us know how it goes!



-Lord Rahvin

[Birthright-L]

> Total sales of Birthright = Sum of (size of audience sub n * Prob sub n that a given audience member will buy BR) from i to n, where n is the number of discrete audiences exposed to Birthright. Don`t forget the probability of purchasing, given knowledge of existence of BirthtRight.





Ryan,



I depend on you for all math to logic conversions for roleplaying purposes.

Can you interpet this for me? What does "sub n" mean?



-Lord Rahvin

[ryancaveney]

On Sat, 6 Sep 2003 lordrahvin@SOFTHOME.NET wrote:



> > Total sales of Birthright = Sum of (size of audience sub n * Prob

> > sub n that a given audience member will buy BR) from i to n, where n

> > is the number of discrete audiences exposed to Birthright.

>

> Ryan,

>

> I depend on you for all math to logic conversions for roleplaying

> purposes. Can you interpet this for me? What does "sub n" mean?



*grin*



"sub n" is just shorthand for a name to distinguish different groups:

"Birthright Audience One", "Birthright Audience Two", "Birthright Audience

Three", and so on. "Prob sub n" means that each of these groups may have

a different probability of buying a BR product. So what he means is

something like:



BR sales = (number of people who DM BR) * (80% chance of buying) + (number

of people who play other people`s BR campaigns) * (50% chance of buying) +

(number of greyhawk DMs who want political rules) * (30% chance of buying)

+ (number of people who play D&D but never heard of BR before) * (10%

chance of buying) + (number of people who think D&D is satanism) * (0%

chance of buying) + etc.



The formula he wants just says "for every distinct group of people,

multiply their number by their likelihood of buying Birthright; then add

up those numbers for every group."





Ryan Caveney

[Birthright-L]

> *grin*



You take waaaay to much pleasure in math, mister. Maybe you should get out

a little more. You know... go grab a bite to eat. Maybe see a movie.

It`ll be good for you... :) I know of this gaming group in California that

might take you in...





> "sub n" is just shorthand for a name to distinguish different groups:

> "Birthright Audience One", "Birthright Audience Two", "Birthright Audience

> Three", and so on. "Prob sub n" means that each of these groups may have

> a different probability of buying a BR product. So what he means is

> something like:

>

> BR sales = (number of people who DM BR) * (80% chance of buying) + (number

> of people who play other people`s BR campaigns) * (50% chance of buying) +

> (number of greyhawk DMs who want political rules) * (30% chance of buying)

> + (number of people who play D&D but never heard of BR before) * (10%

> chance of buying) + (number of people who think D&D is satanism) * (0%

> chance of buying) + etc.

>

> The formula he wants just says "for every distinct group of people,

> multiply their number by their likelihood of buying Birthright; then add

> up those numbers for every group."



Okay, cool. Gotcha.

Thanks a bunch.



-Lord Rahvin

[Mourn]

Unless I am drastically mistaken only the D&D core 3 books are OGL. Star Wars, d20 Modern, Wheel of Time are not.

As stated, d20 Modern has its own SRD and OGL.


And yes, people are still at Wizards&#39; good graces to use them since they (Wizards) can at any time revise (see 3.0 to 3.5) or no longer publish updates or otherwise support, the core products.

Yes, they can stop publishing these books at any time... and they could also go out of business... and they could also take away any fan-page&#39;s right to do a revision of Birthright. Many things could happen. The sky could fall.

However, what they CANNOT do is revoke the current 3.0 and 3.5 (and d20 Modern) SRDs.


This is precisely the reason, that and the licensing cost and potential market being small, that no publisher has picked up Birthright - Wizards has insisted upon maintaining the right (solely) to publish the core book and relinquishing control of only the "other" products to the company.

Wait.. the fact that they could stop publishing the books is "precisely the reason" that no publisher has picked up Birthright? Ummm... no.

So far two publishers (whose names I cannot mention) have attempted to make a deal with Wizards of the Coast in order to publish a BRCS 3rd Edition (now 3.5). They were offered the same licensing deal that WW struck when they licensed Ravenloft, which means that the publisher is the one that puts out all the books, including the core. The deal fell through as the publishers lacked to capital to both license and launch the setting.

The only reason Dragonlance had its core book published by WotC is that Dragonlance is FAR more popular that Birthright has been and will ever be. Oh, and they still publish Dragonlance novels... so they liked to retain control over the core product.

[Mourn]

Here&#39;s a solution someone mentioned earlier, but never followed up on...

Make clerics spontaneous casters. The only spells they know are the spells granted by their god&#39;s domains. Create plenty of new domains and fit them into the spell list, so more spells from the cleric list get used. Allow bonus domains at higher levels to increase the spell list.

[ryancaveney]

On Sat, 6 Sep 2003 lordrahvin@SOFTHOME.NET wrote:



> You take waaaay to much pleasure in math, mister.



There is no such thing! *grin*



> Maybe you should get out a little more.



I do -- there`s lots of good math out there. So many things to count!

Sadly, I never generate a bolt of lightning when I cackle about it...



> You know... go grab a bite to eat.



Pizza is a good math food. Fractions, pie charts, and all that.



> Maybe see a movie.



"A Beautiful Mind"?



> It`ll be good for you... :)



Math is good for you! =)



> I know of this gaming group in California that might take you in...



They`re a little far away from Maryland, unfortunately. Actually, the

group I was gaming with when I first discovered BR was composed almost

entirely of my fellow physicists and mathematicians -- the odd man out

was an aero/astro engineer. ;)



> Okay, cool. Gotcha. Thanks a bunch.



You`re most welcome.





Ryan

[geeman]

At 09:39 PM 9/6/2003 +0200, Mourn wrote:



>So far two publishers (whose names I cannot mention) have attempted to

>make a deal with Wizards of the Coast in order to publish a BRCS 3rd

>Edition (now 3.5). They were offered the same licensing deal that WW

>struck when they licensed Ravenloft, which means that the publisher is the

>one that puts out all the books, including the core. The deal fell through

>as the publishers lacked to capital to both license and launch the setting.



IIRC licensing fees start in the $10,000 range to buy one of settings if

WotC`s got the copyright. It`s probably more sensible to come up with

something new rather than to try to revive a setting that wasn`t

particularly successful in the first place.



I`ve personally offered as much as $90 along with various dated computer

games, baked goods and Star Trek memorabilia for the BR licence, but

they`re still not interested.



Gary

[ryancaveney]

On Mon, 1 Sep 2003, Mark_Aurel wrote:



> Thus, the class philosophy is instead one of giving players fewer, but

> somewhat customizable classes to choose from - either through choosing

> class bonuses/abilities, or feats and skills.



In some sense, all we "specialty priest" advocates really want is for the

core cleric class to be *much* more heavily sutomizable than it currently

is, and then present a dozen recommended customization packages, each with

a Cerilian god`s name stamped upon it. What exactly the specific

mechanics of the implementation are is much less important to me than that

there be -- somehow -- vastly greater differences between the clerics of

different religions.





Ryan Caveney

[ryancaveney]

On Mon, 1 Sep 2003, Mark_Aurel wrote:



> Priests of a certain faith all fulfill certain basic functions -

> primarily holding the body of religious lore and being advisers,

> community leaders or spiritual guides, but also secondary functions

> related to these primaries.



While this is true, this is really a very small number of skills in D&D.

Also, many modern religions are monotheistic, with generalist gods who do

everything themselves. All the myriad flavors of Christianity worship the

same god, using pretty much the same holy book, so it makes sense that

their priests all do pretty much the same thing. The religions of Laerme,

Haelyn and Kreisha have extremely different gods with extremely different

portfolios, so their priests should be vastly more different than are

Catholics, Anglicans and Lutherans.



> If, on the other hand, you were to argue that gods of different

> portfolios should grant spells and powers based on those portfolios,

> that`d be a much better line of reasoning.



That`s exactly what I am arguing, and what I think everyone else who

agrees with me in favor of specialization is also arguing.



> The basic acolytes of any given faith should be fairly similar in

> terms of skills, though, even if their philosophical outlook is

> radically different.



I think you`re reading much more into the word "acolyte" than the writer

intended -- certainly you`re reading much more into it than I did.



On the other hand, if what you`re saying is that most people with the

social function "religious leader" when modeled in D&D terms are not folks

with lots of cleric levels, but rather Commoners, Experts or Aristocrats

with a skill selection tilted towards providing guidance to the flock, I

agree completely. But I think that`s a different argument.



> there`s a lot of powers that all divine spellcasters should have in

> order to be able to do their job properly.



But the details of that job do vary significantly from faith to faith, and

as such so would the powers necessary to perform those details. Think for

a moment about the difference between how Rournil and Belinik would define

the best method to implement "know religion, be wise".



> Perhaps the best place to showcase the difference between gods is in

> what clerics can do with the miracle spell - the upper-end uses of

> this spell should really be gods using their salient divine abilities

> on the cleric`s behalf.



I think the differences should be very clear in the most everyday and

lowest-level use of priestly magic power.





Ryan Caveney

[ryancaveney]

On Tue, 2 Sep 2003, RaspK_FOG wrote:



> I, in fact, impose a whole festivity-and-other-trivia year cycle to

> all of the clerics who appear in my campaign according to their patron



This sounds very interesting! Would you please give us more details?



> Furthermore, none has given an answer to my question: why should

> all clerics get the same number of spell slots per day that a

> specialist wizard gets? This is obsurd and unfair.



I want all clerics to be significantly more focused in their available

spells than specialist wizards are. I agree that as it stands it doesn`t

make sense to give clerics only bonuses without any penalties.





Ryan Caveney

[ryancaveney]

On Mon, 1 Sep 2003, Gary wrote:



> On a somewhat off-topic aside: Ages ago I played with a DM who gave

> all clerics (as well as druids, paladins and the divine spells of

> rangers) access to the kind of spontaneous spellcasting that is now

> used for sorcerers and bards in 3e.



My personal preference, as I know I`ve said before but probably not

lately, is to make this a bloodline dependent thing. IMC, all non-blooded

spellcasters, of whatever class, must prepare all their spells. All

blooded spellcasters, of whatever class, cast spontaneously. In

Birthright, I prefer to make as many things as I can depend on bloodline.

I like casting spontaneity better not as a feature of the class, but as a

feature of the person`s heritage.





Ryan Caveney

[ryancaveney]

On Tue, 2 Sep 2003, Daniel McSorley wrote:



> Over-react much?



Exaggerate for dramatic effect, my friend. =)



> The implementation of clerics is totally irrelevant to the flavor of

> the setting.



I disagree totally, as I hope I`ve made clear. The flavor concept I want

to keep is "clergy of different religions have very different magical

powers." I can`t do that in 3e without changing the default rules.



> They used speciality clerics in 2nd edition because that was the 2nd

> edition rule set. There`s nothing especially birthright-ish about

> specialty priests. It`s pretty much coincidense that they`re

> associated with the setting, because that happened to be the way

> Wizards was describing religions when BR was published.



Which is the same argument I`ve made in favor of letting elves heal. =)

The trouble is that we really have no way at all to know exactly which

bits of the BR rules are intentional and which are accidental, so everyone

has their own ideas of what "real BR" really is. We can`t resolve this.



> Had Birthright originally been published in 2001, Wizards would have

> spec`ed out the religions using domains and the 3rd edition versions

> of clerics, and when fourth edition came out in aught-six, all of us

> crusty old-timers would have been complaining that "domains and spell

> preparation are a necessary part of the flavor of birthright, I can`t

> believe they want to change clerics to use these spell-points from

> fourth edition."



Not me, man! I used spell points in first edition. =) Seriously, I

simply cannot play a rules set without tinkering with it. I also have

very strong ideas about what makes Birthright Birthright, though it is

also clear those ideas differ from those of many other people with

similarly strong and long-held opinions. What I am arguing is pretty much

exactly what I would be arguing upon going from 14th edition to 15th: the

way D&D works by default doesn`t do as good a job as I would like of

modeling the way I think Cerilian metaphysics ought to work. Therefore,

since we have to change some of the rules anyway, why not change more of

them, in order to continue to update the system to better fit my vision?



> Actually, and totally as an aside, the first RPG book I ever owned was

> the Greyhawk hardcover,



Red box D&D Basic Set, 1980. =)



> It never made sense to me why there were these independant kingdoms

> laying around calling themselves duchies and counties, but they didn`t

> answer to a king.



Even many of us who`ve known the history of the Great Kingdom for decades

are still bothered by the fact that the multiple Urnsts and Uleks are

independent adjacent countries with different hereditary titles -- how the

heck did that happen? I call it laziness on Gygax`s part. =)



> It actually seems like a good setup for a

> BR-style game, now that I know the history bits.



Yes, Greyhawk is a wonderful setting for BR realm management rules. The

`83 boxed set even tells you how many warcards of which type are in each

realm`s army!



> Probably need to run it without bloodlines and RP, but the rules in

> the BRCS conveniently support that pretty well now.



Without bloodlines, perhaps, but not without RP! Peter Lubke`s RP = DP is

a rather more interesting approach than "only GB for everything". I like

Gary`s "Majesty" score and points, too. There`s also collection from

Charisma + Level alone. But really, there`s no reason not to say, "OK,

the King of Furyondy has a bloodline score of 78" and use completely usual

BR mechanics without necessarily requiring a Deismaar equivalent. It`s

even not that hard to go around the map distributing derivations -- the

"demon-seeing" House of Naelax of Aerdy, for example, is obviously Azrai.





Ryan Caveney

[ConjurerDragon]

Ryan B. Caveney schrieb:



>On Mon, 1 Sep 2003, Mark_Aurel wrote:

>

>>Thus, the class philosophy is instead one of giving players fewer, but

>>somewhat customizable classes to choose from - either through choosing

>>class bonuses/abilities, or feats and skills.

>>

>>

>In some sense, all we "specialty priest" advocates really want is for the

>core cleric class to be *much* more heavily sutomizable than it currently

>is, and then present a dozen recommended customization packages, each with

>a Cerilian god`s name stamped upon it. What exactly the specific

>mechanics of the implementation are is much less important to me than that

>there be -- somehow -- vastly greater differences between the clerics of

>different religions.

>Ryan Caveney

>

>

And if possible, even between clerics of the same god but a different

church.

In 2E Book of Priestcraft this was made through a bonus proficiency,

for example: Orthodox Imperial Temple got the bonus proficiency "law" at

7th level when they took "Bureaucracy",

Western Imperial Temple got "Administration" (at 5th level) when they

took Etiquette.

bye

Michael

[kgauck]

----- Original Message -----

From: "Michael Romes" <Archmage@T-ONLINE.DE>

Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2003 4:19 AM





> And if possible, even between clerics of the same god but a different

> church.



This is one of the nice additions of 3E clerics. The selections of the

bonus spell list which appear in the PHB as domains offers a nice list of

customizable bonus spells and powers. This combined with suggested skill

purchaes (based in part on the proficiency bonuses) helps to allow

customization at a variety of levels.



Most dramitic is the difference between clerics of different gods. Much

less dramatic, but still observable is the difference between temples.

Other distinctions can arrise within temples that present still more

cleavage, though presumably more subtle than between temples, and then there

is the individual`s own customization, based on the options his commitment

to diety, temple, and approach all provide.



Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

[geeman]

OK, let`s see if we can get a little more particular regarding class

abilities for 3e "specialty priests" in BR. For the nonce, let`s ignore

the specific spell lists of spheres, and assume that they are all balanced

against one another. I know, I know... that`s not very realistic. For the

purpose of discussing the overall character class design here we can worry

about the specifics of the spheres later.



One of the things that annoys me about the 3e DMG`s discussion of how to

tweak character classes is it`s lack of specificity or methodology, so for

the sake of clarity, here are the basic class features of all 3e character

classes and some generalized descriptions of the options available to them:



Hit Die: d4, d6, d8, d10, d12

BAB progression: Slow, medium, fast

Save progression: Slow, medium, fast

Access to special abilities: None, one, low, medium, high

Access to spell slots: Low, medium, high

Access to spell lists: Low, medium, high, unlimited

Restrictions: None, one, low, medium, high



A few notes:



1. "Unlimited" in regards to spell lists is based on the basic D&D

separation of divine and arcane spell lists. For our purposes, clerics

have "high" access to spell lists because they do not have all the spells

associated with druids.

2. We never have a "medium" saving throw progression in 3e, but such a

progression does exist in other D20 products. One might want to ignore

that medium progression, however, for the purpose of discussion a D&D 3e

conversion system.

3. There are, of course, differences in the number of spell slots

available to various classes. For the purpose of this progression,

however, they are not so different as to warrant different

classification. The "X+Y=Z" function of the cleric class`s spell slots is

different than the straight "Z" of the wizard or sorcerer, but for our

purposes it`s not that big a deal.



One of the things 3e tends to assume is that each of the descriptors and

categories above are about equivalent. They`re not, of course. Spell

slots and access to spell lists are more significant than other class

abilities, and special abilities can vary immensely in their range of

utility, but for the sake of generalizing the class system, 3e assumes that

they are roughly equivalent. Also, 3e never seems to actually balance the

features of the extant class abilities as they are detailed above, so the

above break down would not be particularly apt for balancing the existing

classes. If one wanted to assign a point value to the various options then

one could use it for such a purpose, but without bothering with that we can

use it to note a trade off for the specialty priest issue. That is, a

downward shift in one of the features can accompany an upward shift in

another feature.



3e clerics, of course, have d8 hit dice, medium BAB progression, 2 fast and

1 slow saving throw progressions, high access to spell slots, and high

access to divine spell lists.



I skipped the special ability part of clerics there because they have only

one (the ability to turn or rebuke undead) but I`d like to suggest

something about that. To wit: it`s really a "medium" number of special

abilities, not "one" in the above break down of character class

features. The ability to turn/rebuke undead increases with level and has a

multiplicity of functions as is described in the core texts and expanded

with feats in the DotF supplement and various D20 texts. None of the core

classes really have only "one" special ability. The closest is the

sorcerer`s ability to summon a familiar, but even that is really a level

dependent special ability that has increased effects.



In most cases, if we`re going to incorporate spheres we are going to

restrict that class feature; reducing the standard "high" access of 3e

clerics to spell lists to "medium" and in a few cases maybe even to

"low." In exchange for that shift we can modify the cleric class by

shifting one of the other class features up. In certain cases that might

be the hit die or BAB progression of the class (for something like

Belenick`s priesthood) or additional special abilities for other specialists.



This is, of course, a very generalized system but it would provide some

basis for making changes to the class that goes beyond changing a special

ability or two as described in the 3e texts.



Gary

[Ariadne]

Originally posted by Mourn@Sep 6 2003, 08:44 PM
Here&#39;s a solution someone mentioned earlier, but never followed up on...

Make clerics spontaneous casters. The only spells they know are the spells granted by their god&#39;s domains. Create plenty of new domains and fit them into the spell list, so more spells from the cleric list get used. Allow bonus domains at higher levels to increase the spell list.
Really? You don&#39;t play clerics very often, do you?

Fun to the side, it is a horrible idea to restrict clerics somehow in their spells. The sphere system was removed after 2nd Edition, because no DM has an overlook about the spells of an individual player. If the player was clever, he could smuggle several spells into his list...

[geeman]

At 06:55 PM 9/7/2003 +0200, Ariadne wrote:



>Fun to the side, it is a horrible idea to restrict clerics somehow in

>their spells. The sphere system was removed after 2nd Edition, because no

>DM has an overlook about the spells of an individual player. If the player

>was clever, he could smuggle several spells into his list...



What`s to prevent that from happening with the proliferation of spell lists

for prestige classes? Spells also constantly get added in supplements and

campaign material, so the DM that can keep track of the spell lists for all

the classes and watchdog that aspect of PCs in his campaign (while keeping

up with his other DMing duties) is a rare being indeed.



Aside from that, eliminating the sphere system as a method of preventing

players from cheating their spell list is rather a declaration of defeat,

isn`t it? I mean if players can cheat their spell lists then giving them

total access to the spell list in order to prevent their cheating seems

like rewarding bad behavior.



I don`t think I really got across what I see as the problem with converting

specialty priests and spheres into 3e when they wrote the core texts, so

let me have at it again. Summed up it boils down to this: it`s too much

work for the payoff given the thematic emphasis they were going for. An

anecdote: In an old campaign of mine in a world called "Aru" I had 54

gods. There was one greater god, two intermediate and three lesser gods

for each of the 9 alignments. There were several "elder gods" who were

worshipped in an abstract way, and a lot of demi-gods too, but neither

their own specialty priests dedicated to them. Each of the 54 "main" gods,

however, had a specialty priesthood with differing class abilities and

access to spheres. Now, I don`t know if anyone out there has tried to

write up that much game mechanical campaign material before, but let me

assure you it`s an awful lot of work. In fact, they never all got written

up. I think the list of specialty priests descriptions got close to three

dozen, but many of them remained undescribed for the life of the campaign.



I don`t know what the grand total of gods for FR/GH are, but I`m pretty

sure its a few columns on the ol` abacus. Faced with coming up with that

amount of campaign material for an update of D&D and knowing how much

campaign material they were going to include in the core

texts--particularly regarding the religious campaign material--it made a

whole lot more sense to simply drop the specialty/sphere system and go with

a more generalized cleric and broader access to the divine spell

list. Yes, they had specialty priest descriptions for 2e, but they`d have

to update all those descriptions for 3e. The changes between 2e and 3e

would make many of those descriptions a total rewrite, and they`d probably

have to come up with a more logical method of making specialty priests in

the first place. The FR/GH settings have a more "open theme" when it comes

to such things in the first place, so going with a more generalized cleric

makes more sense anyway. More significant, however, is that if they were

going to write up a few specialty priests for those gods that they did

include they would wind up having an incomplete text since there were so

many that they could not due to the limitations of space and restrictions

on time. My mind boggles at the prospect of having to write up all those

particulars at all, let alone trying to place them in a core text, and keep

them similar enough to their 2e versions that fans would not nitpick their

way through the updated texts for all eternity.



In BR, however, a system of specialty priests and spheres is less

daunting. We have probably no more than fifteen specialty priest

descriptions that need to be written up and the most complex aspect of the

specialty/sphere system--writing up the specific spell lists for the

spheres--doesn`t need to be as endless a process as it would be for FR/GH

where one could come up with so many spheres as to fill a supplement. 54

specialty priesthoods was an awful lot of work, but fifteen I could

probably knock off in a weekend.... Writing up the spell lists for the

spheres on the other hand might take a little while.



Gary

[kgauck]

----- Original Message -----

From: "Gary" <geeman@SOFTHOME.NET>

Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2003 11:25 AM





> classes and some generalized descriptions of the options available to

them:

>

> Hit Die: d4, d6, d8, d10, d12

> BAB progression: Slow, medium, fast

> Save progression: Slow, medium, fast

> Access to special abilities: None, one, low, medium, high

> Access to spell slots: Low, medium, high

> Access to spell lists: Low, medium, high, unlimited

> Restrictions: None, one, low, medium, high



The way I balance classes is that after all of this, I look at class

features. Haelyn has more spell access, so his only granted powers are

Courage and Turn Undead.Nesirie has fewer spells, so more granted powers:

Turn Undead, Water Walk, Improved Turning, Extrordinary Swimmer, and Free

Action.



The beauty of class features is that they can run the range from really

powerful to nearly useless, and so comprise the ultimate balancing tool.



Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

[geeman]

At 02:41 PM 9/7/2003 -0500, Kenneth Gauck wrote:



>The way I balance classes is that after all of this, I look at class

>features. Haelyn has more spell access, so his only granted powers are

>Courage and Turn Undead. Nesirie has fewer spells, so more granted

>powers: Turn Undead, Water Walk, Improved Turning, Extrordinary Swimmer,

>and Free

>Action.

>

>The beauty of class features is that they can run the range from really

>powerful to nearly useless, and so comprise the ultimate balancing tool.



I have a system of point values assigned to various class features that I

use rather than those rather general descriptors. Any such point values

are, of course, somewhat subjective particularly where special abilities

are concerned, the vagaries of campaign specific issues and the style of

the DM, but it is a better way to go than the ad hoc, tit for tat system

suggested by the DMG. At least it gives one a set of guidelines. Using

points is also nice because one can normalize the values to the effects of

ability score bonuses, inventory (mostly magic items), domain size, etc. to

get a comprehensive system of determining things like ECL and CR, all of

which functions nicely when using a system that employs a single decimal

for those values. (Hence, that part of the BP system`s ECL values.) It`s

probably a bit more detail than we really need to worry about for the

purpose of this discussion, however, so the generalized descriptions works

just as well.



One _could_ assign a point value to a sphere based on its utility, or try

to make the spheres of roughly equal value and assign the same value to

them. That`d probably be the most sensible way of going about deciding how

much class features should change in relation to the limitation of a

smaller spell list, but I thought it more prudent to introduce the topic in

a general way before getting too specific on a "how to design character

classes" guide.



Gary

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by Ariadne+Sep 6 2003, 10:11 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Ariadne @ Sep 6 2003, 10:11 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--irdeggman@Sep 5 2003, 10:47 AM
Each Domain has exactly 9 spells in it no more and no less, excluding advancement to Epic level.
Not always. Sword and Sorcery has added own spells to their domains, so that these domains have 10 to 15 spells (two or more per level). Not Wotc "standard", but a nice and often used addition. :D

[/b][/quote]
Could you point out this reference please? I only have a very few SS books (Creature Collection, etc.) and am unfamiliar with it.

They can&#39;t be that often used if this is the first time this variant/reference has been brought up though.


Points of reference:

3.5 PHB pg 307 "Domains: A granted power and a set of nine spells (one for each of 1st through 9th) level themed around a particular concept and associated with one or more deities. . . ."

Pgs 31/32 of the 3.0 PHB "Each domain gives a cleric access to a domain spell at each spell level, as well as a special granted power. . ."

Again, the 3.5 wording is much clearer and less ambiguous than that used in the 3.0 version.

[Ariadne]

Originally posted by irdeggman@Sep 8 2003, 11:14 AM
Could you point out this reference please? I only have a very few SS books (Creature Collection, etc.) and am unfamiliar with it.

Sword and Sorcery: Relics and Rituals I and II (and others if I remember right)

[ConjurerDragon]

Gary schrieb:

...



> Hit Die: d4, d6, d8, d10, d12

> BAB progression: Slow, medium, fast

> Save progression: Slow, medium, fast

> Access to special abilities: None, one, low, medium, high

> Access to spell slots: Low, medium, high

> Access to spell lists: Low, medium, high, unlimited

> Restrictions: None, one, low, medium, high



...



> Gary



Does this include differences in weapon and armour selection somewhere?

For example a cleric of Eloele or Ruornil need not necessarily have

heavy armour or even medium armour proficiency and get other benefits

instead.

bye

Michael

[Ariadne]

Originally posted by Gary
What`s to prevent that from happening with the proliferation of spell lists for prestige classes? Spells also constantly get added in supplements and campaign material, so the DM that can keep track of the spell lists for all the classes and watchdog that aspect of PCs in his campaign (while keeping up with his other DMing duties) is a rare being indeed.
Why should PrC spell lists be restricted? This is a rare variation of the Wotc rules and players tend to ignore PrC’s with lower spell progression or somehow limited spells. As long this is a variant rule, why not, otherwise, no. This rule system would “encourage“ players to prefer other character classes instead of the cleric and because I think, BR is a setting where deities are very important, the wrong way.

Naturally a DM was simply no time to track each player’s spell list, so a restricted spell list will lead to more “borrowed” spells. A player ALWAYS tries to get the most and best spells and domains he CAN get. He will look up every book he can get into his fingers and adds all spells that don’t have an alignment restriction (the bonus of clerics/ druids/ rangers/ paladins and even sorcerers who need not to pray to the DM to let them appear in his campaign). If a cleric’s player must take a domain like “chaos”, he tries to change it with the Mongoose rules (same domain name and power, but other spells at every odd level) and if he likes it, he adds new spells of the “Relics and Rituals” book published by SS. And why not? IMO if he does this much research he should be rewarded for it. So additionally you can say creating own spell lists may simply be a waste of time, because a player ALWAYS finds a way to slip through the rules...


Aside from that, eliminating the sphere system as a method of preventing players from cheating their spell list is rather a declaration of defeat, isn`t it? I mean if players can cheat their spell lists then giving them total access to the spell list in order to prevent their cheating seems like rewarding bad behavior.
No, it simply spares time for the DM and causes less trouble (and damn, I don’t want to be the poor guy who writes up the individual speciality priest spell lists)... BTW creating chains always encourages “bad behavior” (the player only must be a bit chaotic by himself :D ).


In BR, however, a system of specialty priests and spheres is less daunting. We have probably no more than fifteen specialty priest descriptions that need to be written up and the most complex aspect of the specialty/sphere system--writing up the specific spell lists for the spheres--doesn`t need to be as endless a process as it would be for FR/GH where one could come up with so many spheres as to fill a supplement. 54 specialty priesthoods was an awful lot of work, but fifteen I could probably knock off in a weekend.... Writing up the spell lists for the spheres on the other hand might take a little while.
Creating 15 or what speciality priesthoods still costs A LOT OF TIME that can really be invested better. Most guys have some kind of job to do, so their time is restricted enough. This few time should not be wasted with useless (or nearly useless) things, otherwise a new version of the BRCS or the Atlas will NEVER be ready.

[geeman]

At 06:02 PM 9/8/2003 +0200, Michael Romes wrote:



>>Hit Die: d4, d6, d8, d10, d12

>>BAB progression: Slow, medium, fast

>>Save progression: Slow, medium, fast

>>Access to special abilities: None, one, low, medium, high

>>Access to spell slots: Low, medium, high

>>Access to spell lists: Low, medium, high, unlimited

>>Restrictions: None, one, low, medium, high

>

>Does this include differences in weapon and armour selection somewhere?

>For example a cleric of Eloele or Ruornil need not necessarily have

>heavy armour or even medium armour proficiency and get other benefits

>instead.



No, it doesn`t include that, and it`s a good point so add:



Inventory: Low, medium, unrestricted



Gary

[geeman]

At 06:50 PM 9/8/2003 +0200, Ariadne wrote:



>
Originally posted by Gary

> What`s to prevent that from happening with the proliferation of spell

> lists for prestige classes? Spells also constantly get added in

> supplements and campaign material, so the DM that can keep track of the

> spell lists for all the classes and watchdog that aspect of PCs in his

> campaign (while keeping up with his other DMing duties) is a rare being

> indeed.

> Why should PrC spell lists be restricted? This is a rare variation of

> the Wotc rules and players tend to ignore PrC`s with lower spell

> progression or somehow limited spells. As long this is a variant

> rule, why not, otherwise, no. This rule system would "encourage" players

> to prefer other character classes instead of the cleric and because I

> think, BR is a setting where deities are very important, the wrong way.



There are plenty of reasons to restrict the spells lists of prestige

classes, but that`s not what I was getting at. The original suggestion was

that "[t]he sphere system was removed after 2nd Edition, because no DM has

an overlook about the spells of an individual player. If the player was

clever, he could smuggle several spells into his list..." What I`m saying

is that the suggestion that using spheres is a bad idea because

(unscrupulous) players can sneak spells onto their character sheets as no

DM can keep track of the particular spell lists of the spheres isn`t a

solid objection. There are prestige classes that have their own restricted

spell lists (again, it doesn`t matter why for the sake of this issue) which

would be subject to the same vulnerability. If someone could sneak spells

into their character lists under the limitations of a sphere system then

why couldn`t they when using prestige classes that have their own limited

spell list? I`ve never heard of someone sneaking spells into their

prestige class spell lists. Oh, I`m sure it`s happened, but it`s not

something anyone has ever worried about before, so if it`s a problem for

spheres then it should be a problem for every other situation in which a

spell list is made up for a character class.



>Naturally a DM was simply no time to track each player`s spell list, so a

>restricted spell list will lead to more "borrowed" spells. A player ALWAYS

>tries to get the most and best spells and domains he CAN get. He will look

>up every book he can get into his fingers and adds all spells that don`t

>have an alignment restriction (the bonus of clerics/ druids/ rangers/

>paladins and even sorcerers who need not to pray to the DM to let them

>appear in his campaign). If a cleric`s player must take a domain like

>"chaos", he tries to change it with the Mongoose rules (same domain name

>and power, but other spells at every odd level) and if he likes it, he

>adds new spells of the "Relics and Rituals" book published by SS. And why

>not? IMO if he does this much research he should be rewarded for it. So

>additionally you can say creating own spell lists may simply be a waste of

>time, because a player ALWAYS finds a way to slip through the rules...



I suppose that`s true. I`ve certainly had players go a little nuts like

that, and had to reign them in from time to time. I don`t think that the

situation is connected to the issue of a system of spheres for divine

spells, though. If players can sneak spells into existing spell lists as

described above then they could do so with or without spheres. In fact,

wouldn`t a system of spheres be another thing a player have to bypass in

order to sneak spells into his character`s repertoire? If specialty

priests have spheres that have a particular list then it would serve as a

guideline for the kinds of spells they can research and "slip in" to their

character`s spell list.



>
In BR, however, a system of specialty priests and spheres is less

> daunting. We have probably no more than fifteen specialty priest

> descriptions that need to be written up and the most complex aspect of

> the specialty/sphere system--writing up the specific spell lists for the

> spheres--doesn`t need to be as endless a process as it would be for FR/GH

> where one could come up with so many spheres as to fill a supplement. 54

> specialty priesthoods was an awful lot of work, but fifteen I could

> probably knock off in a weekend.... Writing up the spell lists for the

> spheres on the other hand might take a little while.

> Creating 15 or what speciality priesthoods still costs A LOT OF TIME

> that can really be invested better. Most guys have some kind of job to

> do, so their time is restricted enough. This few time should not be

> wasted with useless (or nearly useless) things, otherwise a new version

> of the BRCS or the Atlas will NEVER be ready.



Writing up campaign material is always time consuming. Fortunately, we

have an opportunity to share such efforts here, so not everyone need spend

their time writing up their own versions of specialty priest descriptions

or spheres. Since I find the issue worthwhile I`m willing to waste some of

my time on the issue, I`ll go ahead and do that and if people want to use

it then I`m happy to share. Right now I seem to be caught up in writing up

these new awnsheghlien and BR-specific creature descriptions, however, so

it`ll probably wait until after I get write ups for Spirit Guides, The

Zephyr and the secret origin of the Black Beast of Boeruine written up....



As for what should go into the BRCS, I don`t know if it should go into a

new (3.5?) version of the setting, and that`s not my call to make

anyway. Personally, I think a section for "optional rules" or something

would be better so as to point out the differences between the ideas and

the typical 3e/3.5 campaign. In general, however, I think the ideas would

be more appropriate for an updated version of the Book of Priestcraft, not

just because they would fit better into such a document`s theme and

purpose, but because there would be more room for it there. The BRCS

document is pretty big already...



Gary

[DanMcSorley]

On Sat, 6 Sep 2003, Gary wrote:

> So the "specialty priest" cleric variants necessary would be one for each

> of the human deities plus Moradin, Kartathok, Yeenoghu, Baphomet,

> Kostchtchie, Torazan and the Serpent. For the monstrous "shaman" it would

> be possible to just create a single variant class, meaning the overall

> number of variations necessary would be 14. Eleven human plus dwarves, a

> monstrous "shaman" class and the Serpent`s priesthood.

>

> Can anyone think of others that might be necessary?



Clerics of Azrai are used in some games, it wouldn`t hurt to throw them in

for completeness. The other old gods can be mostly compared with their

heirs, but nothing about Azrai ever screamed "raging barbarian" or "ice

queen" to me.



--

Daniel McSorley

[ryancaveney]

On Mon, 8 Sep 2003, Ariadne wrote:



> so a restricted spell list will lead to more "borrowed" spells. A

> player ALWAYS tries to get the most and best spells and domains he CAN

> get.



So your argument is that since some people will break rules, we should not

make rules? This is a very depressing comment on your experience of

gaming groups, but I do not think it is a good reason not to make spell

lists different.



> He will look up every book he can get into his fingers and adds

> all spells that don`t have an alignment restriction (the bonus of

> clerics/ druids/ rangers/ paladins and even sorcerers who need not to

> pray to the DM to let them appear in his campaign).



It has always been my practice that all spells, feats, items, skills,

classes, races, etc. -- including those in the PHB! -- can only be used

subject to specific DM approval. As a DM, under no circumstances would I

ever let a player cast any spell I didn`t know well myself and consider

appropriate to that particular campaign. As a player, I always ask about

the possibility of allowing new spells several weeks in advance, and

generally expect the answer "no". My personal preference is to have

everything in every new book be considered disallowed unless and until the

DM specifically rules otherwise. The other way lies madness.



> If a cleric`s player must take a domain like "chaos", he tries to

> change it with the Mongoose rules (same domain name and power, but

> other spells at every odd level) and if he likes it, he adds new

> spells of the "Relics and Rituals" book published by SS. And why not?

> IMO if he does this much research he should be rewarded for it.



If the player asks permission and the DM approves, fine -- the rules have

been changed, so there is no breakage of them, and the player gets the

reward sought. Deciding on your own to spring something on the DM and

suddenly say in the middle of a session, "Ha ha, I bought this book you`ve

never heard of and it says my character has all these extra powers you

don`t know the rules for" or deciding to change the rules for your

character without telling anyone else, on the other hand, is nowhere near

good sportsmanship. Does anyone really think this is a reasonable way to

interact in a game? I certainly don`t.



> So additionally you can say creating own spell lists may simply be a

> waste of time, because a player ALWAYS finds a way to slip through the

> rules...



So we shouldn`t have combat rules because some people could ruin the game

by using loaded dice? This argument is going nowhere fast with me. We

should make whatever rules we think would make the game world a better

simulation of whatever we think Cerilian reality ought to be, on the

grounds that we think doing so will improve the games of all those who

wish to abide by the rules. The relative ease of cheating should just not

be an issue.





Ryan Caveney

[kgauck]

I actually print up character spell lists. Only I can add spells to the

spell list.



Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

[Azrai]

One of the main goals of 3. Edition was the improvement of the priest class and the rogue class. An important point has been an unified spell list. It&#39;s was an underlying idea to reform the spell list problem and to imply spell domains.

Speciality priests would violate the 3. Edition rules essentially.

3. Edition has invented prestige classes, this is nearly the same than speciality classes, PrC&#39;s are another way of tackling the problem of priest specialisation.

If you think about SpecPr carefully:
- spell lists for each priests are too complicated
- players which are not fully involved with the rules and do not know all spells are completely lost.
- there are some standard spells for priests which all characters use
- SpecPr only make sense at all if there is a huge amount of spells (like in the 2. Edition).

Tu sum it up, the domains classification and some spell labels (eg [evil]) will do it.

[geeman]

At 01:05 AM 9/9/2003 +0200, Azrai wrote:



> One of the main goals of 3. Edition was the improvement of the priest

> class and the rogue class. An important point has been an unified spell

> list. It`s was an underlying idea to reform the spell list problem and to

> imply spell domains.

>

> Speciality priests would violate the 3. Edition rules essentially.



The latest Dragon has a whole slew of variations to the cleric

class. Changes to the class for the purpose of a BR specialty priest class

system need not be nearly as dramatic as any of the examples in that

issue. One casts spells spontaneously like sorcerers, has a similar table

of known spells, and gains domains regularly--not the domain spells just

the domain`s granted power. That`s a broader and more fundamental change

than limiting spell lists using spheres. Nothing as drastic as that need

be done for BR clerics/specialists in order to give them more campaign

flavor. While Dragon articles certainly aren`t 3e cant, unless the

magazine is similarly in violation of 3e`s essential rules a BR system of

specialty priests is no more likely to break continuity with the core rules

as a typical issue of that magazine. The Dragon issues are written under

the assumption that they are 3e variations, so we can at least employ that

same justification, plus thematic ones for BR specific changes.



In either case, I don`t think staying true to 3e`s rules is a particularly

needful thing in the first place. The best argument for doing so that I`ve

heard is that staying close to 3e will attract more people to BR. I`m not

convinced that`s really the case, as it seems to be based on the assumption

that 3e`s popularity will rub off onto BR--a highly anecdotal

assumption. It`s just as likely (more likely, IMO) that the differences of

the campaign will appeal to people looking for something new and different,

and so find a wider audience by differentiating from the core rules than by

trying to emulate them. However, if folks would rather play BR using rules

as close to 3e as possible then they can simply not employ any proposed

changes, and just use stuff straight out of the PHB.



> If you think about SpecPr carefully:

> - spell lists for each priests are too complicated



That may be. I don`t think it will really be all that complicated since it

will just be a list... but it`s possible that people will find them too

complex to use. At least, I never saw anyone finding the concept too

complex in previous editions.



> - players which are not fully involved with the rules and do not know

> all spells are completely lost.



I suppose that`s also possible, but I don`t think it`ll be the case because

that wasn`t my experience with previous editions, nor do I think there`s be

a substantial dip in the involvement of players with the rules in the

transition from 2e to 3e. Players befuddled by access to variable spell

lists by specialty priest features are going to be lost by similar

differences in the spell lists of other character classes like the

differences in access to divine spells by clerics and druids, wouldn`t they?



> - there are some standard spells for priests which all characters use



Which spells do you mean and why is that a problem?



> - SpecPr only make sense at all if there is a huge amount of spells

> (like in the 2. Edition).



There were more spells in 2e than in 3e? I didn`t realize that. Does

anyone know if that is correct? Is it just that we have a single chapter

for spell descriptions now rather than a separate divine and arcane chapters?



Regardless of any such arguments, since we`ve yet to see how such a system

might be implemented its rather too soon to start decrying the

concept.... Give me a couple weeks and I`ll put a few together, then we

can see how the specifics of it come together and whether or not it is a

good idea in practise before killing the concept without actually seeing

any examples of how it might work.



Gary

[Birthright-L]

I appreciate your perspective and agree with your ideas (for the most part),

but I think the specific points you bring up are flawed in this matter.



> - spell lists for each priests are too complicated



No it isn`t. It`s about the simplest thing you can do. You look at a class

and see what spells you can cast. Pure and simple. I`ve never seen anyone

get confused whether or not a wizard can cast Entangle. It`s pretty easy to

find out.



*Creating* the spell list is *very* complicated, but that`s not the same

argument. I myself wouldn`t want to do it. But if it were done, I think

the game would be better for it.



> - players which are not fully involved with the rules and do not know all spells are completely lost.



How so? This seems to just be rhetoric, and perhaps an argument to do away

with spellcasting classes. We`re not asking players to create their own

spell lists. (Although, I personally, would like to see a system that

allows for this without being overly complicated if anyone has any ideas.)



Hell, the same could be said about the whole D&D game. If you don`t know

the spells and the magic items, you`re just lost. But that aside... it has

nothing (or little) to do with specialty clerics. You might as well not

have clerics for the exact same reason.





> - there are some standard spells for priests which all characters use

> - SpecPr only make sense at all if there is a huge amount of spells (like in the 2. Edition).



These actually sound like valid arguments. Are you saying that based on the

spells available in the 3.0 or 3.5 player`s handbook, it`s impossible to

make specialty spell lists that would be appropriate for the Birthright

deities?



I would fully accept the rationale that in order to make balanced, different

spell lists you`d have to add a whole bunch of new spells, which is not

within the scope of the BRCS project. If it were proven true...



> Tu sum it up, the domains classification and some spell labels (eg [evil]) will do it.



Well, this whole point came up because it was felt that domain

classification wouldn`t "do it". Descriptors would be ideal, except that we

can`t actually add descriptors very easily and the system doesn`t make as

extensive use of them as it should, IMO. But if we could easily add,

modify, and customize the descriptors for various spells that would be a

suitable alternative. Of course, eventually we might want to make lists of

spells that use particular descriptors to help players determine which

spells they can and can`t cast...



---



Personally, I think having customized spell lists is difficult to create,

will never to quite balanced/customized properly, and just isn`t worth the

time to do. Focusing on other areas like the Turn Undead ability and the

domains, and maybe even the combat stats sounds like a much better way of

differentiating the clerical deities from one another.



-Lord Rahvin

[QuestingMage]

Wow, miss two days and you miss alot&#33;

Lord Rahvin, thanks for the extended post about your conversion. I hadn&#39;t thought about the need to define all the domains in advance. That could be a headache.

You had lots of other good points, too. I&#39;ll have to think about them and get back to you more later.

And sorry about the formula; I was trying to be pithy, not cryptic. But at least it gave Ryan a chance to show off :D

Cheers,
Shaun

[kgauck]

----- Original Message -----

From: "Azrai" <brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET>

Sent: Monday, September 08, 2003 6:05 PM





> If you think about SpecPr carefully:

> - spell lists for each priests are too complicated



Too is a relative modifier. If I say Missouri in summer is too hot, I am

correct (it is too hot) but clearly people live in Missouri and they liver

still farther south. Too complicated works the same way. Its an

investment, you may not value the return on investment as much as I do, but

I certainly do value the return on investment and have done so for years.



> - players which are not fully involved with the rules and do not know

> all spells are completely lost.



Because they have a smaller list of spells to get to know? I don`t let

players choose their characters by showing them competing spell lists. You

choose a god based on its world view, the spell list follows once you are

initiated into the secrets of the faith.



> - SpecPr only make sense at all if there is a huge amount of spells (like

> in the 2. Edition).



There are plenty of spells.



> Tu sum it up, the domains classification and some spell labels (eg

[evil])

> will do it.



Lemonade will do to, if you are happy with the Missouri heat. Some of us

may opt for air conditioning, or perfer settlement in Denmark. What will or

won`t do cannot be described in universal construction. Especially when

based on a relative modifier.



Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

[kgauck]

----- Original Message -----

From: "Gary" <geeman@SOFTHOME.NET>

Sent: Monday, September 08, 2003 7:11 PM





> There were more spells in 2e than in 3e? I didn`t realize that. Does

> anyone know if that is correct? Is it just that we have a single chapter

> for spell descriptions now rather than a separate divine and arcane

chapters?



There are more spells in 2e if we count all the extra spells in the Complete

Guide to Wizards the Tome of Magic and all the other places spells appeared

*and* of we ignore such sources in 3e.



Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

[irdeggman]

It looks like the best way to cover this is with separate classes for the priests. Each one would have its own spell list, BAB, saving throw bonuses, HD, starting proficiencies and class abilities. This is what, I believe Lord R is working on - for discussion. It is an exisiting mechanic, and while it does require an epic level amount of work to do could work.

I do believe that simply creating a "new" themed spell list would fall way short in this endeavour. The "new" class system would of course replace the existing cleric class and hence the domains would be eliminated, any applicable spells could fall in the specific spell lists and any appropriate granted abilities could fall in the class abilities section.

Lord R, for simplification - I suggest only picking a couple of deities to start with - Haelyn and Rournil would probably be good choices that would show a wide variance in classes. If you want, when you get your initial attempt completed you can e-mail it to me and I&#39;ll try to get it posted for download. This would solve the formatting issues that almost always pop up when something in a class/table format is attempted to be posted.

I wonder if I should start a poll though to see how wide the desire for something like this really is. I mean 3 or 4 avid posters doesn&#39;t necessarily reflect the masses and if only a few really are interested it wouldn&#39;t reallly be worth the effort.

My e-mail is irdeggman@cox.net

[Ariadne]

Originally posted by geeman@Sep 8 2003, 08:49 PM
Writing up campaign material is always time consuming. Fortunately, we have an opportunity to share such efforts here, so not everyone need spend their time writing up their own versions of specialty priest descriptions or spheres.
As long as I find those speciality priests on a nice sidebar as an optional rule there can be 15 priesthoods per deity, if someboby sees that as nesessary. Otherwise this is 2nd Edition and buried...

[Azrai]

The creation of new spell lists will weaken the priest class (if one does not include new abilities like given in the PrCs). That must be, because there are only a limited number of spells available.

As a result the priest class will get less attractive, this is contradictory to the 3. Edition.


The "new" class system would of course replace the existing cleric class and hence the domains would be eliminated, any applicable spells could fall in the specific spell lists and any appropriate granted abilities could fall in the class abilities section.

Seems like a step back to the 2. Edition. I fear we lose sight of what really matters. You can&#39;t be serious.


Like most people here in the forum I played D&D for quite a lot of years. The priest was always the most unattractive class of the game (only the D&D "red box"-classic was liked). Not one of my players wanted to play a priest. This has changed since 3. Edition. The cleric is finally up to the mage. No more special spell lists, no more spheres. This makes the priest playable and more interesting.

I remember also DM problems. Imagine a spontaneous fight with the PC&#39;s and priest NPC&#39;s. There was alway the question which spell can be used and which is allowed. It took a long time to "learn" which spells would be available. This can&#39;t happen now in the 3. Edition.


Which spells do you mean and why is that a problem?

What I mean is that there are some standart spells for each spellcaster class. Maybe magic missile, fireball or lightning for mages; hold person, silence, cure for priests. Finallly all priest can cast standart spells and one don&#39;t needs to worry about if he is able to cast them.


Lemonade will do to, if you are happy with the Missouri heat. Some of us
may opt for air conditioning, or perfer settlement in Denmark. What will or
won`t do cannot be described in universal construction. Especially when
based on a relative modifier.

What do you mean by that? It&#39;s in the nature of things that people have different points of view. It is also fine that Birthright is not the mass-market. But it&#39;s also an accepted fact that we have to find a unified version.

Frankly, what you suggest is sheer madness and a complete waste of time. Who want&#39;s to playtest the spell lists?

[RaspK_FOG]

Well, in the end, all things reach one point: they are variants, and you may like them or not. I (and I am serious about this) have said that different races should have a variant (which I am using) adjustment to Charisma- and Wisdom-based checks to introduce racial hatred, so illithids make Bluff checks at (for example) a -4 penalty against dwarves due to the hatred and lack of trust dwarves so for illithids, while elves get a +2 bonus on Sense Motive checks against dwarves, due to their own prejudice, and that Rangers should get a high Reflex bonus as well. Then I read a Dragon issue and found that they had givena similar variant suggestion, and 3.5 gives Rangers high Reflex saves; in the end, it all is a matter of judgement.

Anyway, I think that a poll is in line now, since most of us just try to pose why is this idea better than the other. What do you think?


Ryan Caveney, the festivity cycles I have introduced in my campaigns varies greratly according to the deity we are talking about. Erik&#39;s clergy of course pays great attention to the season cycle, while the waining of the sun is a major importance to the cold-revering priesthood of Krisha; another example is Ruornil, and astronomers or astrologers amongst his clerics would be very much needed to record and celebrate the phases of the moon. Think over it and create appropriate tables for the various clergies, even varying them from domain to domain if you have the courage to do so much work (I don&#39;t :P )... I am sure the clerics of your campaigns will feel good, knowing they play more of a priestly role, until yo tell them they have to fast for a month&#33; ;)

[Ariadne]

Originally posted by Gary
> If you think about SpecPr carefully:
> - spell lists for each priests are too complicated

That may be. I don`t think it will really be all that complicated since it will just be a list... but it`s possible that people will find them too complex to use. At least, I never saw anyone finding the concept too complex in previous editions.
Naturally this is right. It is like my overlooking argument. There might be players who like to play a cleric (only because he can heal, of cause), but don’t know the rules. They only know one hand full of spells which they memorize all the time. OK, you can say: Then it is no prob to restrict his spells. Right, but he will make the DMs live to hell, if HIS spell is cut...


> - there are some standard spells for priests which all characters use

Which spells do you mean and why is that a problem?
Cure ... wounds including heal and their mass versions for example. Well a cleric of Haelyn needs not nessessarly inflict spells, but a cleric of Kriesha should better memorize a cure spell. It was a great advantage, that EVERY cleric can cast these spells since 3rd Edition (including its spontanous casting)... Why this is a problem? Because some specialty priests CAN’T automatically cast them ... (Example: A priest of Cuiraécen never could cast Heal, if the player wasn’t clever [see below])


> - SpecPr only make sense at all if there is a huge amount of spells (like in the 2. Edition).

There were more spells in 2e than in 3e? I didn`t realize that. Does anyone know if that is correct? Is it just that we have a single chapter for spell descriptions now rather than a separate divine and arcane chapters?
Yep, this IS correct. The “priest spell compendium” (there is a wizard version of this, of cause) includes hundreds and hundreds of spells (three complete book s of it, the wizard version even 4) of all known campaign worlds of first and second Edition including all extra books like ToM and Dragon + Polyhedron magazine (yeah, you can find all published BR spells there). Even if a deity is granted only two spheres with major access, the cleric had more than one page full of spells. In 3rd Edition (including ALL additional books) have only 1/50 to 1/25 of those spells available.
Example: A cleric of Cuiraécen was only half this powerful without those books. Here you could find a priest version of “Lightning Bold” and “Haste” (both combat sphere) and they put “Word of Recall” in the right (for priests of Cuiraécen available) sphere. Naturally the player took the old FR spell “Storm Rage”originally granted by Talos and you could even annect a spell originally granted by Eldath (FR) where you needed the Air or Water sphere (yes, Cuiraécen granted both with major access) to get “Resurection”, “Heal”, “Cure Disease”, “Neutralize Poison” and “Regenerate” with ONE single 7th level spell. Well, you needed a high level caster and a full round action, but no XP cost or aging things. This to my comment for slipping through rules... Forbid that? OK, but I think IF a cleric gets only few spheres and therefore spells it is a thing of survival to take what he can get. Restricted to the 2nd ED PHB? IMO only a fool (or the unfortunate guy who did not have access to extra books) did that...
If we don’t create “new” specialty priests, we spare valuable time for ourselves (the designers), DMs AND players.


Originally posted by kgauck
> If you think about SpecPr carefully:
> - spell lists for each priests are too complicated

Too is a relative modifier. If I say Missouri in summer is too hot, I am correct (it is too hot) but clearly people live in Missouri and they liver still farther south. Too complicated works the same way. Its an investment, you may not value the return on investment as much as I do, but I certainly do value the return on investment and have done so for years.
And you can say New York in winter is too cold, but compare this to Canada. What to hell has this to do with specialty priests? Creating one spell list for clerics in general costs enough space in the PHB, how long do you like to have the BRCS? 50 pages for spells only and additionally the rules for different religions? Funny. Go further and create an own spell list for every sect&#33;&#33;&#33; No, not everybody has ISDN or a better access to internet and some STILL PAY PER MINUTE with a 56 KB MODEM&#33;&#33;&#33; I don’t want to pay extra costs only for 11 or more different spell lists exclusively for every deity&#33;&#33;&#33; Thanks, if somebody realy wants to create that, he should do it as an optional rule and post it at the Writers Guild here on BR.net.

[Osprey]

Making variant classes for the priesthoods does seem like the only sound way to do it. A lot of work? Definitely. Is it worth it? I think anything that adds that much distinct flavor to a world is worth it. Does the BRCS have room for it? That&#39;s a tougher question.

Here&#39;s the core issue, and the one which will most directly affect the BRCS publication:

Should the BRCS do away with the PHB Cleric class and replace it with individual variant Priest classes for each deity? That seems like the question that would be worth starting a poll on.

If it is to be a variant rule set, it should probably be available to download seperately, such as from the Archives here on BR.net.

Osprey

[Osprey]

One of the big issues I see being debated is one of game balance. Are the 3e PHB clerics too powerful? Some seem to think so. I don&#39;t think they are too powerful relative to the other classes, but that&#39;s just my own opinion.

Prestige classes for each deity with low prerequisites could work quite well, especially if they are opened up for infinite progression rather than 5 or 10 levels max. However, it would be necessary to make them as good as (if not superior within their specialty areas to) a general PHB Cleric if that class can exist in Cerilia. If this balance isn&#39;t possible, than it does become necessary to choose between one system or the other, but they wouldn&#39;t coexist very well.

I just wish there was a happy medium somewhere in between, where the general spell list was smaller and the chosen domains more significant. Clerical domains are a neat flavor element for the 3e cleric, but in truth they are extremely limited in their function. 1 spell per spell level, and a minor special ability. Whoopty doo&#33; It&#39;s like a token gesture toward the idea of spheres and deific influence.

One of the attractions of the 2e Spheres was that it made a lot of sense. If a deity only has powers in certain spheres of influence (to varying degrees), then he can only grant spells within those spheres to his clerics. It made which god you follow extremely central to the actual abilities and functions of an individual priest, which makes a great deal of sense.

Now the 3e clerics, in terms of powers and abilities, are all virtually identical with only a few variations: a few bonus spells, a couple of minor special abilities (most domain powers/abilites are pretty weak and of limited utility), and whether or not you channel positive or negative energy. The rest is up to the player and the flavor elements of the setting and deity.

So I must say, I&#39;m pretty interested in seeing a more delineated set of priesthoods, each with its own set of divine powers that give them differing strengths and weaknesses. If done well, and kept in balance with each other and the other classes (esp. wizards/sorcerers), it could make the BR world far better than its compatriot Greyhawk/Forgotten Realms settings. I&#39;m all for rising above the lowest common denominator.

So Geeman, the sooner you&#39;re able to post a few samples, the better&#33; :)

Osprey

[ConjurerDragon]

Osprey schrieb:



>This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.

> You can view the entire thread at:

> http://www.birthright.net/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=36&t=1876

> Osprey wrote:

> Making variant classes for the priesthoods does seem like the only sound way to do it. A lot of work? Definitely. Is it worht it? I think anything that adds that much distinct flavor to a world is worth it? Does the BRCS have room for it? That`s a tougher question.

> Here`s the core issue, and the one which will most directly affect the BRCS publication:

> Should the BRCS do away with the PHB Cleric class and replace it with individual variant Priest classes for each deity? That seems like the question that would be worth starting a poll on.

> If it is to be a variant rule set, it should probably be available to download seperately, such as from the Archives here on BR.net.

> Osprey

>

>

I agree with this. The BRCS is already large enough, it contains already

not only the 2E Rulebook but also the Book of Priestcraft and Book of

Magecraft and the Naval Battle Rules and additional stuff which was

originally split in several books.

bye

Michael

[geeman]

At 05:49 PM 9/9/2003 +0200, Osprey wrote:



>Geeman, the sooner you`re able to post a few samples, the better&#33; :)



I really have a few other things on my agenda that I need to work on first,

but I`ll get to it as soon as possible....



Gary

[geeman]

At 06:09 PM 9/9/2003 +0200, Michael wrote:



>The BRCS is already large enough, it contains already not only the 2E

>Rulebook but also the Book of Priestcraft and Book of Magecraft and the

>Naval Battle Rules and additional stuff which was originally split in

>several books.



Some of those things could be split out into the appropriate in order to

make the BRCS core text smaller.... A system of specialty priests is going

to take up a few pages. The specialty features themselves are small; a few

dozen words each, but the spheres are each a separate spell list that will

take up more room.



Gary

[geeman]

One more thing about spheres I`d like to bring up in relation to the themes

of BR. One of the things about Cerilian magic is the relationship of high

magic and low magic. Divine spell casters don`t have the exact same

delineation as arcane spell casters with the "major" and "minor" access of

priests to spheres is 1st through 3rd level as opposed to the 1st and 2nd

level access of "low" magic to all schools of magic of magicians, but with

a system of spheres we do have the relationship between divine spellcasters

and their repertoire that parallels that of wizards v. magicians. I`d

suggest that that has something more to do with the relative power scales

of divine and arcane magics, however, rather than an actual relationship to

the numbers. (3rd level is where arcane magics really start to take off in

power.)



It`s not a terribly big deal, but it one of those things that adds a level

of symmetry and consistency to the setting that makes for a more satisfying

(to me, at least) thematic basis.



Gary

[RaspK_FOG]

Well, one thing that many people seem to pay no heed is that clerics from one edition to the next are particularly different when concerning alignment restrictions: in 2e, the acceptable alignment of the clergy was a per deity issue, while in 3e it is a set rule: up to one step on one alignment axis only. Yet clerics in the BRCS are allowed to have an alignment that shares any one alignment element and allow the full scale for the other, thus allowing LE and CG clerics of LG deities&#33;

Furthermore (and not being sure, but I do have to check) why are you saying clerics get less spells than in 2e? You seem to forget that clerics got only 7 levels of spells&#33; And yes, I didn&#39;t write what I meant as I should: clerics get an extra spell, just like specialist wizards, without forgoing any school&#33; And they actually get more spells than wizards...

Finally, I particularly liked the Foci concept; it kind of reminds me of the Affinities from The Wheel of Time.

[geeman]

At 04:29 PM 9/9/2003 +0200, Ariadne wrote:



>Creating one spell list for clerics in general costs enough space in the

>PHB, how long do you like to have the BRCS? 50 pages for spells only and

>additionally the rules for different religions? Funny.



Just as an estimate, a system of specialty priesthood would probably take

up less than five or six pages. One could pretty easily fit the actual

specialty priest info on a single page since that`s about three or four

sentences each. (I don`t see any reason why they`d take up more room than

they did for their 2e descriptions in the original setting material.) The

spheres would take more room, but since they would be spell lists it`s hard

to see how they would take up more room than the average spell list for a

prestige class and those are pretty brief.



Gary

[elondria]

This sounds pretty kick butt, how can I get a copy of this? :)

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by geeman@Sep 10 2003, 01:32 AM
At 04:29 PM 9/9/2003 +0200, Ariadne wrote:



>Creating one spell list for clerics in general costs enough space in the

>PHB, how long do you like to have the BRCS? 50 pages for spells only and

>additionally the rules for different religions? Funny.



Just as an estimate, a system of specialty priesthood would probably take

up less than five or six pages. One could pretty easily fit the actual

specialty priest info on a single page since that`s about three or four

sentences each. (I don`t see any reason why they`d take up more room than

they did for their 2e descriptions in the original setting material.) The

spheres would take more room, but since they would be spell lists it`s hard

to see how they would take up more room than the average spell list for a

prestige class and those are pretty brief.



Gary


Actually Gary it would probably take up more than a few sentences each. Most probably a page each, in addition to the spell lists, since we are really talking about a separate class for each priesthood here. That means a list of class skills and a table that goes up to 20th level with abilities and spell progression as well as the list of spells using similar formatting to that already used for classes.

Something to consider also is that in 3rd ed the delineation of arcane and divine spells is fuzzy at best so the inclusion of some of the more fitting normally arcane spells into the class spell lists is not inappropriate.

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by RaspK_FOG@Sep 9 2003, 04:53 PM
Well, one thing that many people seem to pay no heed is that clerics from one edition to the next are particularly different when concerning alignment restrictions: in 2e, the acceptable alignment of the clergy was a per deity issue, while in 3e it is a set rule: up to one step on one alignment axis only. Yet clerics in the BRCS are allowed to have an alignment that shares any one alignment element and allow the full scale for the other, thus allowing LE and CG clerics of LG deities&#33;

Furthermore (and not being sure, but I do have to check) why are you saying clerics get less spells than in 2e? You seem to forget that clerics got only 7 levels of spells&#33; And yes, I didn&#39;t write what I meant as I should: clerics get an extra spell, just like specialist wizards, without forgoing any school&#33; And they actually get more spells than wizards...

Finally, I particularly liked the Foci concept; it kind of reminds me of the Affinities from The Wheel of Time.
The reason that the alignment restrictions from the PHB were "modified" in the BRCS was to account for the NPCs (mostly) from the 2nd ed BR setting. There was (and still is) a strong opinion about trying to capture as much about the published NPCs as possible without change or a violation of whatever rules are adapted for use in the d20 version of BR.

The reason that people are saying that 2nd ed priests had more spells than 3rd ed ones was that even though they didn&#39;t have the higher level spells they did get to cast more spells per level per day. They also had immediate access to any spell on their list, that is to say that they didn&#39;t have a limitation based on what they "learned" or had in their spellbooks - so they had a wider selection of spells to choose from each day.

The general consensus as to why 3rd clerics get as many spells per day as a specialist wizard without giving up any schools is that they must devote much of their casting into cure spells and that a typical party of PCs needs as much curing available as they can get their hands on. In general also clerical spells are less "powerful" than their spell level equivalents on the wizard lists. That is to say while they are mostly just as "useful" they won&#39;t typically affect a combat on the offense side, and since the cure/inflict spells are "touch" spells they will cause attacks of opportunity if used within a threatened area, either to cure an ally or to cause harm to an opponent - note that if a caster is struck for damage by an attack of opportunity he needs to make a concentration check to avoid losing his spell since this attack most definitely occurs during the casting.

[geeman]

At 10:23 AM 9/10/2003 +0200, irdeggman wrote:



> Actually Gary it would probably take up more than a few sentences

> each. Most probably a page each, in addition to the spell lists, since

> we are really talking about a separate class for each priesthood

> here. That means a list of class skills and a table that goes up to 20th

> level with abilities and spell progression as well as the list of spells

> using similar formatting to that already used for classes.



Ouch! If the thinking has been that a 3e system of specialty priests would

require an entirely new character class write up (a la the PHB) for each

god then I can certainly understand the objection, but I`m talking about

something that would be no more extensive than what existed in the original

materials. The BRCS Playtest lists variations for paladins all in a couple

paragraphs, and while I think a little more articulation is in order for

specialty priests, it wouldn`t be a whole description for each specialty

priest. Only the variations from the standard class need be listed, and

things like the spell slot progression wouldn`t change (at least, I`m not

proposing changing it for the purpose of a 3e specialty priest system) so

there`d be no need for a whole new table for each specialty.



In this case, something on the order of the BoP`s sections listing the

various special powers of the priesthoods (and paladins) is all I was going

to write up, not a whole character class for each priesthood. The spell

lists for those spheres are going to take some room, but the actual

specialty priest information shouldn`t take much more than it did in the

original materials. In fact, it might take a little less room since one

needn`t list "Requirements" and "Prime Req." nor "Magical Items" in a 3e

version of the specialty priests since ability score requirements, prime

requisites and the ability to use magic items by character class are gone

(for the most part.)



Here`s what I`m thinking I`ll write up at present:



Alignment:

Weapons:

Armor:

Major Spheres:

Minor Spheres:

Turn/Rebuke Undead:

Powers:



I wasn`t going to go any more extensive than that, and where such

information does not change from the standard cleric class I usually find

it fine to just leave it out. That is, if the specialty priest`s access to

armor or weapons does not vary from the standard cleric class then that

line is omitted as superfluous. If that`s adopted as part of a consistent

standard than readers get used to it quickly in my experience.



Also, I was only going to write up bare, statistical information for those

categories, not try to emulate 3e`s repetition and prolixity in describing

class` access such things as armor and weapons. Rather than "Clerics of

Haelyn are proficient with all types of armor (light, medium, and heavy)

and with shields. Note that armor check penalties..." etc., I`m just going

to write "Armor: All and any shield" and leave it at that. I don`t think

anyone would be confused by something as simple as that kind of list of

class features. At least, I never heard of anyone failing to grasp the

idea in BR 2e.



I admit I hadn`t considered access to skills for specialty priests, and

hadn`t thought any of them need change necessarily, but where they might

change it could be noted with just a single line unless they differ so

greatly as to require an entire skill list. Anyway, if I get into this and

decide that specialty priests should have different class skills then

something like this would probably be easiest:



Class skills: as cleric plus Intimidate (Cha).



Should it get much more complicated than that then I`ll write up a table

like that in the PHB.



So, for example, here`s what I have in mind:



PRIESTS OF BELENIK

Alignment: Any evil

Weapons: All martial and simple

Armor: Any armor, no shield

Major Spheres: Combat, Guardian, Protection, War

Minor Spheres: All, Animal, Charm, Healing

Turn/Rebuke Undead: No

Skills: As cleric plus Intimidate (Cha)

Powers: 1) BAB progression as fighter

3) Bonus feat from fighter list of feats

5) Weapon specialization as fighter

7) +2 enhancement bonus to strength

9) Cause Feat 1/day.



Looking at that, it`d probably take a two or three pages for all 12-15 that

we might use--if they were to be listed all on the same page for some

reason. To be frank, some of the descriptive text of the BRCS Playtest

regarding the gods could do with a blue pencil and a pair of

shears. There`s an awful lot of extraneous descriptive text there, so if

some of that were excised (or put into a 3e BoP where it really belongs)

there would be plenty of room for specialty priest information.



The spheres and spell lists, I`m sure, will take more room, but I`m only

planning on listing them (or putting them on a table) not rewriting the

spell descriptions or including anything other than the names of the spells

and the associated spheres, so it should be fairly compact.



>Something to consider also is that in 3rd ed the delineation of arcane and

>divine spells is fuzzy at best so the inclusion of some of the more

>fitting normally arcane spells into the class spell lists is not inappropriate.



That`s a good point. We`ll see what happens when I sit down to write up

those spheres.



Gary

[Ariadne]

Originally posted by Osprey@Sep 9 2003, 04:49 PM
So Geeman, the sooner you&#39;re able to post a few samples, the better&#33; :)

Prestige classes for clerics are already a part of the atlas&#39; work and to make BR clerics more colorful creating PrC&#39;s with Wotc rules should be enough.

[Trithemius]

> Ariadne wrote:

> Creating one spell list for clerics in general costs enough space in the

> PHB, how long do you like to have the BRCS? 50 pages for spells only and

> additionally the rules for different religions? Funny.



The general Cleric spell list in the PHB takes slightly under two pages

to list, and I suspect that a list for specialty priests would be

fractionally *shorter* not longer.



Personally, I`d like a longer discussion of religion for BR. I think it

is woefully under-explored in the existing supplements myself.



--

John Machin

[trithemius@paradise.net.nz]

-----------------------------------

"Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."

Athanasius Kircher, Ars Magna Sciendi.

[Trithemius]

Gary wrote:

> Also, I was only going to write up bare, statistical information for those

> categories, not try to emulate 3e`s repetition and prolixity in describing

> class` access such things as armor and weapons. Rather than "Clerics of

> Haelyn are proficient with all types of armor (light, medium, and heavy)

> and with shields. Note that armor check penalties..." etc., I`m just going

> to write "Armor: All and any shield" and leave it at that. I don`t think

> anyone would be confused by something as simple as that kind of list of

> class features. At least, I never heard of anyone failing to grasp the

> idea in BR 2e.



Alternatively you can just put something like: "As `Cleric` in PHB 3.x,

except for...". The FRCS does that sort of thing for the racial

descriptions.



Having the rules for armour and encumbrance effecting Swim scores in

*every* skill list really bugs me actually.



--

John Machin

[trithemius@paradise.net.nz]

-----------------------------------

"Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."

Athanasius Kircher, Ars Magna Sciendi.

[Ariadne]

Originally posted by Gary

So, for example, here`s what I have in mind:

PRIESTS OF BELENIK
Alignment: Any evil
Weapons: All martial and simple
Armor: Any armor, no shield
Major Spheres: Combat, Guardian, Protection, War
Minor Spheres: All, Animal, Charm, Healing
Turn/Rebuke Undead: No
Skills: As cleric plus Intimidate (Cha)
Powers: 1) BAB progression as fighter
3) Bonus feat from fighter list of feats
5) Weapon specialization as fighter
7) +2 enhancement bonus to strength
9) Cause Feat 1/day.

IF you create those “specialty priests“ make them LIKE 2nd Edition:

This would sound like:

PRIESTS OF BELENIK
Alignment: Any evil
Weapons: All martial and simple
Armor: Any armor, no shield
Major Spheres: Combat, Guardian, Protection, War
Minor Spheres: All, Animal, Charm, Healing
Turn/Rebuke Undead: No
Skills: As cleric plus Intimidate (Cha) and Ride (Dex)
Powers:
1) BAB progression as cleric (only Cuiraécen granted the BAB of a fighter)
3) Bonus feat from fighter list of feats
5) Weapon specialization as fighter
7) +2 enhancement bonus to strength AND constitution
9) Cause Fear 1/day.


Well, now tell me where will you write up those spheres? Don’t tell me THIS costs no room&#33;&#33;&#33; No, a “normal“ prestige class for Belinik over 10 levels would be more than enough to reflect the same without this chaotic sphere write up... Yeah, with a PrC he still CAN pray for ALL usable cleric spells but most still have his standard and a cleric of Belinik still can’t cast good spells. Irdeggman already pointed out the difference between 2nd and 3rd Edition very clearly. Creating a cleric of the 2nd Edition model with 3rd Edition rules will make the cleric UNPLAYABLE, UNWANTED and UNATTRACTIVE. This is the wrong way. As I already said: If someone likes to have those varant rules, why not and he should create and post it here on BR.net, but hands away from “official” BR cleric descriptions.

[RaspK_FOG]

The general consensus as to why 3rd clerics get as many spells per day as a specialist wizard without giving up any schools is that they must devote much of their casting into cure spells and that a typical party of PCs needs as much curing available as they can get their hands on.
I again have to disagree. Getting more levels of spells in 3e and 3.5 means that clerics generally get more spells, not less. Do the math and check it out, if you please, as I have lent my 2e books to a future cadaver (let&#39;s just say he has forgotten to return my books for about 2 months).b Moreover, clerics still get spells as thedy like, as long as their levels allow them to do so and as long as they pray during the day...


In general also clerical spells are less "powerful" than their spell level equivalents on the wizard lists. That is to say while they are mostly just as "useful" they won&#39;t typically affect a combat on the offense side,
Are you sure about that? Let me think... don&#39;t the names harm, flamestrike, and destruction get any points for the opposite?


and since the cure/inflict spells are "touch" spells they will cause attacks of opportunity if used within a threatened area, either to cure an ally or to cause harm to an opponent - note that if a caster is struck for damage by an attack of opportunity he needs to make a concentration check to avoid losing his spell since this attack most definitely occurs during the casting.Of course, but WotC has given out a feat that allows you to cast touch spells at a distance (from Defenders of the Faith)... Not to mention the fact that, apart from magical protections, clerics can wear any armour and carry any shield (except, fortunately, tower shields in 3.5) and still cast spells without problems. And they have some pretty descent proficiencies. Top that with dwarven, elven (irrelevant in BR, except if you allow for an elf to become a cleric), and gnome (again irrelevant in BR, they don&#39;t exist) weapon familiarities, and the cleric is pretty much the most potent character class in PHB, even unbalanced&#33;

[ConjurerDragon]

Ryan B. Caveney schrieb:



>On Wed, 10 Sep 2003, Ariadne wrote:

>

>>Well, now tell me where will you write up those spheres? Don`t tell me

>>THIS costs no room

>>

>>

>It`ll take maybe 3-4 pages, like in the back of 2e`s Tome of Magic.

>

>>No, a "normal" prestige class for Belinik over 10 levels would be more

>>than enough to reflect the same

>>

>>

>The problem with prestige classes in this application is that they take

>too long to qualify for. I don`t want clerics who are nearly identical

>until they hit 6th-8th level and then can become different if they wish,

>I want clerics who are all distinctly different at 0 XP.

>

>>Creating a cleric of the 2nd Edition model with 3rd Edition rules will

>>make the cleric UNPLAYABLE, UNWANTED and UNATTRACTIVE.

>>

>>

>You think so, but many others of us disagree just as strongly. To me, it

>is only the default third edition which makes clerics those three things.

>IMO, creating significant differences between religions is necessary to

>avoid stultifying monotony which materially harms both the enjoyment of

>game play and the fascinating, distinctive character of the game world.

>Ryan Caveney

>

>

And not to forget: The setting is supposed to be magical item rare -

restricting clerics from being able to cast certain spells makes it more

difficult to produce certain magical items, like a Priest of Belinik

creating a Wand of Healing or whatever that does not really fit into his

concept at all... And suddenly the 3E problem that everyone could raise

the dead which in 2E only few could would be solved, too :-)

bye

Michael

[ryancaveney]

On Wed, 10 Sep 2003, Ariadne wrote:



> Well, now tell me where will you write up those spheres? Don`t tell me

> THIS costs no room



It`ll take maybe 3-4 pages, like in the back of 2e`s Tome of Magic.



> No, a "normal" prestige class for Belinik over 10 levels would be more

> than enough to reflect the same



The problem with prestige classes in this application is that they take

too long to qualify for. I don`t want clerics who are nearly identical

until they hit 6th-8th level and then can become different if they wish,

I want clerics who are all distinctly different at 0 XP.



> Creating a cleric of the 2nd Edition model with 3rd Edition rules will

> make the cleric UNPLAYABLE, UNWANTED and UNATTRACTIVE.



You think so, but many others of us disagree just as strongly. To me, it

is only the default third edition which makes clerics those three things.

IMO, creating significant differences between religions is necessary to

avoid stultifying monotony which materially harms both the enjoyment of

game play and the fascinating, distinctive character of the game world.





Ryan Caveney

[DanMcSorley]

On Sun, 7 Sep 2003, Ryan B. Caveney wrote:

> > They used speciality clerics in 2nd edition because that was the 2nd

> > edition rule set. There`s nothing especially birthright-ish about

> > specialty priests. It`s pretty much coincidense that they`re

> > associated with the setting, because that happened to be the way

> > Wizards was describing religions when BR was published.

>

> Which is the same argument I`ve made in favor of letting elves heal. =)



I don`t really buy that. In second edition, elves could be clerics. In

birthright, they couldn`t. This is a deliberate departure, done for

flavor and theme reasons.



In second edition, fighters got weapon proficiencies at the listed rate

from the PHB. In birthright, they did as well. No one would argue that

this is a flavor issue. It`s just using the default rule.



In second edition, clerics of different religions were described using

specialty priests. In birthright, they were as well. They just used the

default rule structure, yet people say this is a thematic choice. I don`t

really buy that either.



(Other topic.)

> Without bloodlines, perhaps, but not without RP! Peter Lubke`s RP = DP is

> a rather more interesting approach than "only GB for everything". I like

> Gary`s "Majesty" score and points, too. There`s also collection from

> Charisma + Level alone. But really, there`s no reason not to say, "OK,

> the King of Furyondy has a bloodline score of 78" and use completely usual

> BR mechanics without necessarily requiring a Deismaar equivalent. It`s

> even not that hard to go around the map distributing derivations -- the

> "demon-seeing" House of Naelax of Aerdy, for example, is obviously Azrai.



I actually like the "GB for everything" rules in other settings. If the

king wants to use magical energy to make his domain actions more

successful, let him hire a sorceror with "charm person" like everyone

else. :)



--

Daniel McSorley

[DanMcSorley]

On Tue, 9 Sep 2003, Gary wrote:

> >The BRCS is already large enough, it contains already not only the 2E

> >Rulebook but also the Book of Priestcraft and Book of Magecraft and the

> >Naval Battle Rules and additional stuff which was originally split in

> >several books.

>

> Some of those things could be split out into the appropriate in order to

> make the BRCS core text smaller.... A system of specialty priests is going

> to take up a few pages. The specialty features themselves are small; a few

> dozen words each, but the spheres are each a separate spell list that will

> take up more room.



I`m certainly of the opinion that the book should be chunked up a bit.

The domain and regency rules in one file, maybe, and the class and feat

stuff in another, and the realm spell rules in still another. It`s

getting unwieldy. The battle system rules will pretty much have to be in

a file of their own, since 3rd party OGL material is being used in them.



--

Daniel McSorley

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by Trithemius@Sep 10 2003, 07:29 AM
The general Cleric spell list in the PHB takes slightly under two pages

to list, and I suspect that a list for specialty priests would be

fractionally *shorter* not longer.



John Machin

[trithemius@paradise.net.nz]


So even at a mere one page per spell list it, the spell lists would total 11 pages alone (one for each deity, i.e., class).

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by Trithemius@Sep 10 2003, 07:29 AM
Personally, I`d like a longer discussion of religion for BR. I think it

is woefully under-explored in the existing supplements myself.

John Machin

[trithemius@paradise.net.nz]


As has been pointed out in other threads, the Atlas is going to have a write up on the different religious orders which should at least come closer to meeting what you would like on this subject.

[geeman]

At 03:04 PM 9/10/2003 +0200, Ariadne wrote:



> Well, now tell me where will you write up those spheres? Don`t tell me

> THIS costs no room



I`ve noted a couple times that the write up for the spheres is what is

going to take the most room. I`m guessing four or five pages depending on

how they are listed.



I`m planning on using a spreadsheet with spells down the left column and

the spheres along the top row and just checking them off as I go down the

list. When I wrote the spell list for the Nature school I just went

through the spells right out of the PHB and that took about 20 minutes. I

don`t anticipate each sphere taking much longer than that.



As for how they`ll be written up if it makes sense to just list them on

such a table then I`ll do that, but if they can fit into a paragraph format

the way spell lists are written up for prestige classes then I`ll do

that. If clarity requires both then that`s what I`ll do. At a guess that

shouldn`t take up substantially more than a few pages, depending on the

formatting of the tables/text.



While I sympathize with the concerns of folks with pay dial-up Internet

connections, the amount of time required to download an additional few

pages of text can`t really be a concern here since it`s much less than

actually buying the campaign material hardcopy would be, and it is

otherwise a free document.



As for "where" it will go, I can`t say because I have no idea. It might

wind up being something that no one other than myself will find worthwhile,

and that`s fine by me since I write this material for my own use. If it

works its way into the BRCS at some point that`s nice, if other folks use

it or come up with their own variations that`s cool too, but at this point

its still a nascent concept so we`ll have to see how it goes before anyone

has an idea of where it goes.



>No, a "normal" prestige class for Belinik over 10 levels would be more

>than enough to reflect the same without this chaotic sphere write up...

>Yeah, with a PrC he still CAN pray for ALL usable cleric spells but most

>still have his standard and a cleric of Belinik still can`t cast good spells.



I`ve noted a couple of times why I don`t think prestige classes are

necessarily the solution to this particular issue, nor are they more than

enough to reflect the particulars of BR`s priesthood. I`m not quite sure

what "more than enough" is in this case.... I suppose it`s possible to

have too much campaign flavor in a campaign setting should it interfere

with actually playing the setting, but this will actually be much more

simple in implementation than those opposed to the idea have suggested. It

was in 2e, it will be in 3e. Writing up the spheres is the thing that will

take up a lot of time, and having done a very similar thing when I wrote up

the "Nature" school of magic for Cerilian elven wizards I can say that took

about twenty minutes, so couple of days investment is what this will likely

require.



>Irdeggman already pointed out the difference between 2nd and 3rd Edition

>very clearly.



I found that argument less than compelling because all of the ideas of the

specialty priest system fit perfectly well into the 3e/3.5 text on how to

modify character classes which includes not only guidelines (loose ones,

but guidelines) on how to change around class features and how to design

particular spell lists for such classes. The suggestion that a 2e system

of specialty priests



>Creating a cleric of the 2nd Edition model with 3rd Edition rules will

>make the cleric UNPLAYABLE, UNWANTED and UNATTRACTIVE. This is the wrong

>way. As I already said: If someone likes to have those varant rules, why

>not and he should create and post it here on BR.net, but hands away from

>"official" BR cleric descriptions.



Whether it goes into the official BR cleric description isn`t my

call. That doesn`t mean we can`t explore the idea. If you don`t like the

idea then you needn`t contribute any effort to it, and whether it makes it

into the BRCS or not you needn`t play it. Variations to the cleric class

(or any class) are not, however, unplayable, unwanted or

unattractive. _Dragon_ has dedicated a series of articles to variations of

character classes, many of which are much more drastic than any proposed

here. It`s not so drastic a deviation from 3e as to damage either the

system or the setting.



Gary

[geeman]

At 10:41 PM 9/10/2003 +0200, irdeggman wrote:



>So even at a mere one page per spell list it, the spell lists would total

>11 pages alone (one for each deity, i.e., class).



One page per spell list! Yikes. OK, I think I`m understanding better why

people object to the idea if this is how they think it would have to be

written up. To clarify, the spell lists for spheres need only be a

paragraph. Like this:



Healing: 0th: Cure Minor Wounds. 1st: Cure Light Wounds. 2nd: Cure

Moderate Wounds, Delay Poison, Lesser Restoration, Remove Paralysis. 3rd:

Cure Serious Wounds, Remove Blindness/Deafness. Etc.



At least, that`s how I was planning on writing them up after going through

the whole list of them on a spreadsheet....



If one wants to put each level`s spells in it`s own paragraph for the sake

of clarity (the way domains are, or some spell lists for prestige classes

are written up) it would take more room on the page, but some good

formatting can reduce the necessity to do that. Bolding and/or italicizing

the spell level text, for instance, can make it more readable. Since the

spheres are pretty delineated there`ll probably not be more than a two

dozen spells per paragraph, making for (guesstimate) about 70-100 words

each. They would be about as long as the domain write ups in 3e. As Ryan

noted, the spheres took up only a few pages in the back of 2e`s Tome of

Magic, and all the PHB`s domains are 3-4 pages.



One of the points in having spheres it that one can then give minor or

major access to that spell list to a specialty priest without the whole

spell list being rehashed by just noting "Major Sphere: Healing" in that

descriptive text. One then refers to the list of spheres to get a spell list.



Gary

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by geeman@Sep 10 2003, 04:57 PM
One of the points in having spheres it that one can then give minor or

major access to that spell list to a specialty priest without the whole

spell list being rehashed by just noting "Major Sphere: Healing" in that

descriptive text. One then refers to the list of spheres to get a spell list.



Gary


Don&#39;t go that way. Minor and major access was purely a 2nd ed thing. The way to do in matching 3rd ed mechanics is to have a separate list for each class not a combined one. The "best" way to format them is per the class spell lists in the PHB with a simple 1 line description of the spell. Using the simplified format you&#39;ve talked about would render a very poor quality product that I would be loath to include in the BRCS for quality control purposes that is.

Remember that a spell list is only part of the equation there is more to describe the classes than just the spells.

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by RaspK_FOG@Sep 10 2003, 10:42 AM

The general consensus as to why 3rd clerics get as many spells per day as a specialist wizard without giving up any schools is that they must devote much of their casting into cure spells and that a typical party of PCs needs as much curing available as they can get their hands on.
I again have to disagree. Getting more levels of spells in 3e and 3.5 means that clerics generally get more spells, not less. Do the math and check it out, if you please, as I have lent my 2e books to a future cadaver (let&#39;s just say he has forgotten to return my books for about 2 months).b Moreover, clerics still get spells as thedy like, as long as their levels allow them to do so and as long as they pray during the day...


In general also clerical spells are less "powerful" than their spell level equivalents on the wizard lists. That is to say while they are mostly just as "useful" they won&#39;t typically affect a combat on the offense side,
Are you sure about that? Let me think... don&#39;t the names harm, flamestrike, and destruction get any points for the opposite?


and since the cure/inflict spells are "touch" spells they will cause attacks of opportunity if used within a threatened area, either to cure an ally or to cause harm to an opponent - note that if a caster is struck for damage by an attack of opportunity he needs to make a concentration check to avoid losing his spell since this attack most definitely occurs during the casting.Of course, but WotC has given out a feat that allows you to cast touch spells at a distance (from Defenders of the Faith)... Not to mention the fact that, apart from magical protections, clerics can wear any armour and carry any shield (except, fortunately, tower shields in 3.5) and still cast spells without problems. And they have some pretty descent proficiencies. Top that with dwarven, elven (irrelevant in BR, except if you allow for an elf to become a cleric), and gnome (again irrelevant in BR, they don&#39;t exist) weapon familiarities, and the cleric is pretty much the most potent character class in PHB, even unbalanced&#33;
OK I compared the priest spell progression from 2nd with the 3rd ed ones and they are really similar. Assuming a 19 Wisdom (minimum to cast 9th level spells in 3rd ed) a 1st level 2nd ed priest got 4 1st level spells, a 1st level 3rd ed cleric gets3 – 0 level, and 2+1 1st level. Using the orison rules from Spells and Magic a 2nd ed priest would use a 1st level spell and could cast 3 + his level worth of orisons, so he actually gained a 0-level spell over the 3rd ed cleric (a wash). Jumping up to 5th level a 2nd ed priest could cast 6 – 1st, 4- 2nd and 3 – 3rd level spells while a 3rd ed cleric can cast 5 – 0, 4+1 – 1st, 3+1 2nd and 2+1 3rd level spells which is just about a wash also. Jumping to 17th (minimum level to cast 9th level spells in 3rd ed) a 2nd priest could cast 10 – 1st, 9 – 2nd, 9 – 3rd, 8 – 4th, 5 – 5th, 3 – 6th, and 2 – 7th level spells while a 3rd ed cleric can cast 6 – 0, 6+1 – 1st, 6 + 1 – 2nd, 6 + 1 – 3rd, 6 + 1 – 4th, 4 + 1 – 5th, 4+1 – 6th, 3+ 1 – 7th, 2 + 1 – 8th, and 1 + 1 – 9th level spells so the 3rd ed cleric gains spells on the high end (mostly due to 2nd ed only having spells up to 7th level) but overall they are still pretty close.

Now to compare the relative offensive power of a cleric versus a wizard using the examples you gave:

Flamestrike is a 5th level cleric spell that does 1d6 per level (max 15d6) with a save for half to all within a 10 foot radius. At 5th level wizards get; cloudkill which affects a 20 ft radius and automatically kills creatures of 3 or fewer hit dice (no save), 4 – 6 HD gets a save to avoid death but take 1d4 Con damage on a failure each round while in the cloud and greater than 6 HD creatures take 1d4 Con damage (save for half) each round in the cloud; Cone of cold which affects all within a cone up to 60 ft away gives 1d6 damage per level (max 15d6) with a save for half. Not to mention that a wizard still can use his “lower” level offensive spells, like fireball and lightning bolt (both 3rd level spells). Advantage – wizard due to variety and the fact that cloudkill will deal automatic death to some creatures.

Harm is a 6th level spell that deals 10 pts of damage per level (max 150 pts) with a save for half. It affects a single creature and requires a touch attack . A wizard can use – disintegrate which does 2d6 per level (max 40d6) with a save to receive 5d6 damage. It is a ray attack and also affects a single creature (or object). Advantage – wizard – it’s a ranged attack that potentially causes more damage and the save result that is generally higher.

Destruction is a 7th level spell which instantly slays the creature with a save to receive 10d6 and it affects a single creature at a distance. A wizard can use – delayed blast fireball which does 1d6 per level (max20d6) with a save for half and affects all within a 20 ft radius; finger of death which slays one living creature with a save for 3d6 +1 per level (max +25) and can work at a range. Advantage – wizard - finger of death is slightly less powerful than destruction but delayed blast fireball affects a greater number of creatures.


Which as I said clerical spells are generally less powerful then their equavlents on the wizrds spell list.

True there is a feat in Defenders of the Faith that allows a touch spell to be used as a ranged attack spell. So if a cleric takes that feat (with one of his every 3rd level feats) he could extend the range from touch to a ranged attack thereby eliminating the attack of opportunity, but forcing a ranged attack to be made. A touch attack is made against an AC that doesn’t count armor or shields. Weapon focus can apply to ray type attacks and since the feat Reach Spell is a metamagic feat a wizard could use one of his bonus feats to gain it. Again advantage wizard.

[RaspK_FOG]

It seems the spell issue has been sorted out... On with th rest then.

It may be true that a Wizard has more variety in spell selection, but he has quite a small allowance of spells per day, which effectively makes him a very frustrating choice, especially in several occasions where the choice of spells to memorise is more varied due to the various implications that may exist. Clerics, on the other hand, have to choose few spells.
As a 5th-level Wizard/5th-level Cleric I have once played (a very interesting multi-classing choice, especially now that WotC has published the Mystic Theurge prestige class), it always took me a snap to make my choice of clerical spells, even though I was playing a cleric without the spontaneous casting of cure spells, but inflict instead, while the choice of wizard spells was always a fuss.

Furthermore, clerics can wear armour and shields without spell failure chance (a nice addition to bards in 3.5 is the lack of arcane spell failure chance for wearing light armour B) ), and their weapon proficiencies and base attack bonus is rather good, not to mention the acquisition of the Martial Weapon Proficiency (Deity&#39;s Favoured Weapon) and Weapon Focus (Deity&#39;s Favoured Weapon) feats that clerics who take the War domain receive.

All in all, it is a fact that clerics are too good, not because of their individual high points, but because of their added high points. For one thing, clerics are naturally more of a part of a group than wizards, and they achieve better results when in one.

[geeman]

At 03:04 PM 9/10/2003 +0200, Ariadne wrote:



> IF you create those "specialty priests" make them LIKE 2nd Edition:



Just to reiterate something here--I don`t want to exactly duplicate the 2e

BR specialty priests in 3e. Some of the powers granted to 2e specialty

priests were not balanced, and some don`t necessarily translate well into

3e. They did some interesting things to differentiate the priests and gods

from one another, but some didn`t even employ 2e mechanics very well, I`m

afraid. The ability of Ruornil`s priesthood to cast spells as if they were

magicians of half their priest level, for instance, would have been better

reflected IMO by simply having an "illusion" and a "divination" sphere

(might not need the divination sphere given the existence of an "all"

sphere, but I`ll have to see) and give the specialty priest access to that

sphere rather than "half access" to another spellcaster`s whole list....



In the case of Belenik`s priesthood, breaking up the special abilities into

+2 to strength for one level and +2 to constitution for another rather than

both on the same level is more like the way 3e/3.5 handles such things

(though 3e/3.5 does it haphazardly sometimes) and more in keeping with a

progressive system of class features.



Gary

[geeman]

At 12:41 AM 9/11/2003 +0200, you wrote:



>Don`t go that way. Minor and major access was purely a 2nd ed thing. The

>way to do in matching 3rd ed mechanics is to have a separate list for each

>class not a combined one. The "best" way to format them is per

>the class spell lists in the PHB with a simple 1 line description of the

>spell. Using the simplified format you`ve talked about would render a

>very poor quality product that I would be loath to include in the BRCS for

>quality control purposes that is.



Well, I`m just not going to do that. Sorry. Aside from the fact that I

think you`re confusing 3e mechanics with the style of the 3e core texts, I

don`t feel the need to emulate the domain`s way of listing spells for this

purpose because it`s not necessary since they appear in the core texts in

that format already and one needs the PHB to play BR. All we need for this

purpose is a list of the spells in each sphere. If someone wants to write

up the spheres in the manner your describing--like the domains in the 3e

PHB--then they`re more than welcome, but I don`t personally find that style

very useful or necessary for the purpose of a specialty priest/sphere system.



>Remember that a spell list is only part of the equation there is more to

>describe the classes than just the spells.



If you`re saying that in order to have a system of specialty priests one

would have to write up whole new and complete character class descriptions

like that of the PHB for each variation then I`ll have to agree with

Ariadne and say that it is a waste of time and effort. I`m pretty sure,

however, that I can do it without losing the audience, decreasing the

readability or sense of the ideas, or of doing anything substantially out

of style with 3e/3.5. There are several character class write ups (The

King/Queen of the Wild in MotW, for instance) that have variations listed

in a manner like the one I`m describing and that doesn`t seem to have

violated 3e`s style or confused the readers much, so I`m pretty confident

that this won`t either.



Gary

[ryancaveney]

On Wed, 10 Sep 2003, irdeggman wrote:



> Something to consider also is that in 3rd ed the delineation of arcane

> and divine spells is fuzzy at best so the inclusion of some of the

> more fitting normally arcane spells into the class spell lists is not

> inappropriate.



Especially since several of the BR gods have such strong ties to arcane

magic classes: Ruornil and Avani to wizards, and Laerme to bards.

Another place to look is the small list of Paladin-only spells, some of

which could be appropriate for the more martial gods: Cuiraecen certainly,

Haelyn probably, and maybe even Belinik for some of them. Also, since

the primary element on the clerical list is fire, Kreisha and Nesirie

pretty much have to look at the wizard list for water/ice spells.





Ryan Caveney

[Osprey]

Gary,
I don&#39;t think you need to write up something quite so extensive as listing brief descriptions of every spell; I agree that this is a waste of time and space when the spells are described elsewhere.

However...I do think it&#39;s important to make them formatted in a more easily scannable form than paragraphs. We are talking about spell lists, and I think writing them out as lists is very appropriate and a heck of a lot easier to read, compare, and use when playing a priest than picking stuff out of dense paragraphs.

I think you could easily write up each list as a column, and get 2-4 columns per page, depending on how exactly you format it. Making them in a similar format to the PHB is important for a 3e/3.5 compatible system. What players will want is an easy way to look and compare the various lists to each other and the PHB cleric. I think the paragraph format of 2e specialty priests was overcrowded and rather unfriendly to readers. Lists are much easier to read, and especially to scan quickly. But without the brief spell descriptions, you should be able to fit a LOT of spells per page in column format.

Osprey

[Osprey]

To RaspK_Fog, concerning clerics and power:

Man, I don&#39;t know if you really love wizards and feel like they got shafted, or just hate clerics, but geez...it seems you have an arcane inquisition against the priesthood going&#33; ;)

Seriously, though...I think you&#39;re overestimating the cleric&#39;s advantages. Here&#39;s how I see it:

Clerics have a Medium Base Attack (not high, like fighters, nor low, like wizards, but medium, same as rogues and bards). D&D Clerics are an adventuring variety of priesthood, not the stay-at-home, pray-in-the-temple sort of priesthood that is typically thought of from historical examples (though there are plenty of more militant clerics of European history&#33; :D ).

So to say they have a really good BAB is pretty exagerated. A fighter will kick a cleric&#39;s butt in a straight melee fight, unless the cleric is already buffed with 5+ enhancement-type spells and is of higher level.

What I think the cleric&#39;s basic abilities, HP, saves, and spells make them is more survivable than your average specialty class (like the wizard) - but not necessarilly more potent in any area other than healing and defense. These are their real specialties, and they really do lack any strong offensive abilities until they hit high levels (flame strike at 9th level, harm at 11th).

And by the time they reach those high level spells, fighters are doing 2-3 attacks per round, often with magic weapons and other enhancements, and I&#39;d still put my money on the fighter in a straight 1-on-1 fight.

So in combat respects, the specialized classes keep the advantage so long as they are buffered by some sort of magic (be it a supporting spellcaster or magic items). That&#39;s what the 3e rules take into consideration.

Also, the cleric has always been a strong defensive class, and I don&#39;t see a big reason to shift that for a generalized class description. With specialty priests that all changes, of course. What I would love to see for a campaign setting is a real distinction between the stay-at-home types and the adventuring ones, so that the old 15th level High Priest who rarely leaves the temple has powerful magics, but not the same kind of HP, saves, and BAB earned from years of hard fighting in an adventure setting.

As for wizards: I have to agree with Irdeggman on this one; arcane Evocation spells, as well as the other stuff like Finger of Death, Horrid Wilting, etc. really blow away most of the stuff clerics can pull out, especially at the mid-level casting (Fireball and Lightning Bolt have always been the out-and-out best offensive spells for 5th-8th level casters).

Wizards have always had the best spell lists: throw in stuff like Haste, Slow, Displacement, Stoneskin, Fire Shield, Invisibility+, and all the neat creative effects like Illusion spells (which you can do nearly anything with when used well), and Wizards are left with magical options that outpower and outrange clerical spells, hands down.

So they pay the price for the intense focus and specialization needed to get that kind of power: they suck in a straight fight.

This is pretty much good &#39;ol D&D in its most basic form.

Look on the bright side: in 3e arcane spellcasters finally get bonus spells based on their primary Attributes, greatly evening the spells per day as compared to the old systems. I for one was glad to see that change, and the spells per day have evened out considerably as a result.

If Clerics get one bonus spell per day from their domain lists, is that really such a huge advantage?

On a different note: spontaneous casting is cool, but the necessity of converting spells requiring a full-round action means medic-clerics DO need to memorize cure spells in advance if they want to heal during combat, especially in a small group. If a priest needs to touch to heal (even at 30&#39;), it pretty much requires (or should, rationally) the subject to be still for that full round in order to recieve healing, thus missing one round of actions (or at least delaying his initiative). Not to mention the cleric has a full round in which to get hit and possibly lose the spell in process. Pretty rough, in my estimation. At least, that&#39;s how I run the mechanic in my games. :) The last group I ran learned the "be prepared with cure spells" lesson the hard way. I recommend this style if you have players abusing the spontaneous casting power.

In the end, cure spells on the list means far less other types available for combat. Thus, less flexibility and offensive power than an equal level wizard.

Osprey

[kgauck]

----- Original Message -----

From: "Ryan B. Caveney" <ryanb@CYBERCOM.NET>

Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2003 9:22 AM





> Also, since the primary element on the clerical list is fire,

> Kreisha and Nesirie pretty much have to look at the

> wizard list for water/ice spells.



Or use elemental substitution.



Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

[ConjurerDragon]

Osprey schrieb:



>This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.

> You can view the entire thread at:

> http://www.birthright.net/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=36&t=1876

> Osprey wrote:

> To RaspK_Fog, concerning clerics and power:

>...

> Clerics have a Medium Base Attack (not high, like fighters, nor low, like wizards, but medium, same as rogues and bards). D&D Clerics are an adventuring variety of priesthood, not the stay-at-home, pray-in-the-temple sort of priesthood that is typically thought of from historical examples (though there are plenty of more militant clerics of European history&#33; :D ).

>

> So to say they have a really good BAB is pretty exagerated. A fighter will kick a cleric`s butt in a straight melee fight, unless the cleric is already buffed with 5+ enhancement-type spells and is of higher level.

>

Wouldn´t the level 1 spell Divine Favor and the level 4 spell Divine

Power which gives the cleric a fighters BAB a STR of 18 and 1 additional

hitpoint per level be sufficient and level 5 spells not really needed to

equal the field between a cleric and a fighter? (especially if the

fighter does not field a STR of 18 - after all we are not assuming the

standard dungeon crawl in which fighters all are strong and dumb, but a

game of BR in which even fighters have to look for their other ability

scores).



> What I think the cleric`s basic abilities, HP, saves, and spells make them is more survivable than your average specialty class (like the wizard) - but not necessarilly more potent in any area other than healing and defense. These are their real specialties, and they really do lack any strong offensive abilities until they hit high levels (flame strike at 9th level, harm at 11th).

>

Isn´t that so since 2nd edition? Wizards prime power is mass destruction

of living beings, Clerics mass destruction of undead+healing+support

spells...



> And by the time they reach those high level spells, fighters are doing 2-3 attacks per round, often with magic weapons and other enhancements, and I`d still put my money on the fighter in a straight 1-on-1 fight.

>

While magical weapons are most often severly limited in a BR campaign

for a fighter who can´t create one himself, the Cleric has access to

Magic Weapon from 1st level on, and to Greater Magic Weapon later with a

maximum of +5. And that with a spell which a cleric does not even have

to research, but can simply pray for - what would a fighter have to do

in a BR campaign with rare magical items to get his hands on a +5

weapon? ;-)



> So in combat respects, the specialized classes keep the advantage so long as they are buffered by some sort of magic (be it a supporting spellcaster or magic items). That`s what the 3e rules take into consideration.

>

That is the problem in a BR campaign in which magical items are not so

readily available as the 3E PHB assumes for the campaign.



>If Clerics get one bonus spell per day from their domain lists, is that really such a huge advantage?

>

If a Wizard has to specialize and to lose a whole school of spells to

get the same as the cleric, who loses nothing for gaining it, IMO yes.



> On a different note: spontaneous casting is cool, but the necessity of converting spells requiring a full-round action means medic-clerics DO need to memorize cure spells in advance if they want to heal during combat, especially in a small group. If a priest needs to touch to heal (even at 30`), it pretty much requires (or should, rationally) the subject to be still for that full round in order to recieve healing, thus missing one round of actions (or at least delaying his initiative). Not to mention the cleric has a full round in which to get hit and possibly lose the spell in process.

>

That is an advantage of the cleric over the wizard - both can lose

spells due to damage taken while casting. But the Cleric can cast in any

armour without chance of spell failure, so he needs not to memorize and

cast "Mage Armour" or other +AC spells...

bye

Michael

[geeman]

At 05:06 PM 9/11/2003 +0200, Osprey wrote:



>I do think it`s important to make them formatted in a more easily

>scannable form than paragraphs. We are talking about spell lists,

>and I think writing them out as lists is very appropriate and a heck of a

>lot easier to read, compare, and use when playing a priest than picking

>stuff out of dense paragraphs.



I`ll see how it looks when I write it up. Formatting stuff (beyond the

obvious font type, size, etc.) isn`t really something I`m particularly good

at, but I think I can make it readable in a paragraph format. If not, a

"line" per spell level would be OK, and probably not take up much more room

in columned text.



Gary

[Mourn]

"On a different note: spontaneous casting is cool, but the necessity of converting spells requiring a full-round action means medic-clerics DO need to memorize cure spells in advance if they want to heal during combat, especially in a small group."

First off, no where does it state that the spontaneous casting ability of the cleric is a full-round action. A spontaneous caster&#39;s metamagic use (ala bard or sorcerer) makes the spell a full-round action. A cleric converting a spell to a cure spell simply casts the cure spell, which is a standard action.

"If a priest needs to touch to heal (even at 30&#39;), it pretty much requires (or should, rationally) the subject to be still for that full round in order to recieve healing, thus missing one round of actions (or at least delaying his initiative)."

Ummm... no. A full-round action simply takes up your entire turn, it doesn&#39;t require you to perform it until the next round... and since cure spells are standard actions to cast, the point is moot.

"Not to mention the cleric has a full round in which to get hit and possibly lose the spell in process. Pretty rough, in my estimation. At least, that&#39;s how I run the mechanic in my games."

Again, where do you come up with this full round nonsense? And the possibility for the disruption of a spell only comes at the casting of the spell with either an AoO or a readied action.

"The last group I ran learned the "be prepared with cure spells" lesson the hard way. I recommend this style if you have players abusing the spontaneous casting power."

3rd Edition added the spontaneous casting of cure spells because of the largest complaint about the cleric class: the overwhelming need to prepare cure spells, which knocked many good spells off of a cleric&#39;s daily list. "Don&#39;t prepare that flame strike, we&#39;re going to need some healing dammit&#33;"

Removing that ability is a step back to 2nd Edition.

[Ariadne]

Originally posted by ryancaveney
> No, a "normal" prestige class for Belinik over 10 levels would be more
> than enough to reflect the same

The problem with prestige classes in this application is that they take too long to qualify for. I don`t want clerics who are nearly identical until they hit 6th-8th level and then can become different if they wish, I want clerics who are all distinctly different at 0 XP.
Yes and to play exactly this balanced and unchanged there is only one argument left: Return to 2nd Edition.


Originally posted by ConjurerDragon
And not to forget: The setting is supposed to be magical item rare - restricting clerics from being able to cast certain spells makes it more difficult to produce certain magical items, like a Priest of Belinik creating a Wand of Healing or whatever that does not really fit into his concept at all...
The only problem is that not everyone CAN create magical items at will. If a cleric of Belinik wants to create a Wand of Healing he has to “waste“ a feat first he could invest better (say with Power Attack or any other combat oriented feat).


Originally posted by geeman
Whether it goes into the official BR cleric description isn`t my call. That doesn`t mean we can`t explore the idea. If you don`t like the idea then you needn`t contribute any effort to it, and whether it makes it into the BRCS or not you needn`t play it.
Hey, no need for personal insults&#33; I’ve played several clerics in my live and enough in BR. And BECAUSE I think I know what I’m talking about I discuss that here. The sphere thing in 2nd ED was a farce and a horror for every DM I know of (not only playing BR). Creating hundreds and hundreds of lists for every player, checking it one hundred times if everything is correct, hearing the cry of the player, if this spell can’t be included and that too and why the DM has canceled this, apart from curseing his character because he couldn’t cast exactly THAT needed spell ending mostly with the promiss, never to play a cleric again. This was the reason why nearly everybody prefered the wizard and spent some money in cure spells in a temple. Trust me, I’ve spend much too much time with religion and deities (especially of Cerilia) and nobody can tell me, I’ve no idea of it or because I don’t like the ideas of some 2nd Ed loving guys stop playing it&#33;&#33; Don’t get me wrong, 2nd Ed was cool on itself, but the problem is: It is dead and the sphere system died with it.


Originally posted by Irdeggman
Don&#39;t go that way. Minor and major access was purely a 2nd ed thing.[...] Using the simplified format you&#39;ve talked about would render a very poor quality product that I would be loath to include in the BRCS for quality control purposes that is.

Yes, my opinion is exactly the same.

[Green Knight]

Spontaneous conversion is an interesting ability, and a quite powerful one at that. 3.5 druids got spontaneous converting to Summon Nature&#39;s Ally spells, clerics already had the cure/inflict thing going.

Since druids are one type of speciality priest in BR, this goes to show that not all priests need to stick with healing, but that it might be an idea to give every god a type of spells that can be converted to???

Just an idea, to go with/instead of differntiated spell lists.

[Osprey]

First off, no where does it state that the spontaneous casting ability of the cleric is a full-round action. A spontaneous caster&#39;s metamagic use (ala bard or sorcerer) makes the spell a full-round action. A cleric converting a spell to a cure spell simply casts the cure spell, which is a standard action.

Hmm, you know, you&#39;re right. I had always grouped clerical spontaneous casting in there with sorcerers&#39; and bards&#39; spontaneous casting of metamagic. I&#39;m not sure if I like instant conversion to cure/inflict spells, but that&#39;s how it stands in the PHB.


Ummm... no. A full-round action simply takes up your entire turn, it doesn&#39;t require you to perform it until the next round... and since cure spells are standard actions to cast, the point is moot.


"When using a full-round action to cast a spell whose casting time is 1 full round, the spell is not completed until the beginning of the caster&#39;s next turn." [3.0 PHB Glossary, p. 278]

It is a moot point concerning clerics&#39; cure/inflict spells, but it makes one hell of a difference for sorcerers and bards throwing metamagic around, as well as clerics who Empower and/or Maximize their spontaneous spells.



Again, where do you come up with this full round nonsense? And the possibility for the disruption of a spell only comes at the casting of the spell with either an AoO or a readied action.


Check out the Concentration skill description on p. 65 of the PHB. The first line says a Concentration check is required if you take damage or fail a saving throw during the casting of a spell (for spells with 1 full round casting time or more), DC 10+damage dealt+spell level. Which makes it really rough when getting hit by powerful things like giants and high-level fighters.

The Concentration list is pretty extensive, which points to a general principle for DM&#39;s: if there&#39;s a chance of losing your concentration while casting or maintaining a spell, for any reason, then you probably have to make a Concentration check to not lose the spell.

I actually like the full-round spontaneous casting version I&#39;ve been using. I think instant cure spells on demand can get a little ridiculous, but with the full-round version the cleric can still heal the party after the fight without having to wait until his prayer time to memorize the appropriate healing spells, then wait another day to prepare the adventure-type spells again. It is a vast improvement in that sense over the old version, but it doesn&#39;t allow clerics to simply disregard that healing magic as a way to effectively give other party members bonus HP in the middle of a fight. I think I&#39;ll probably keep running my own game this way, but I&#39;m glad you pointed out the official 3.0 rules. Thanks.

Osprey

[Osprey]

QUOTE
Originally posted by ryancaveney
> No, a "normal" prestige class for Belinik over 10 levels would be more
> than enough to reflect the same

The problem with prestige classes in this application is that they take too long to qualify for. I don`t want clerics who are nearly identical until they hit 6th-8th level and then can become different if they wish, I want clerics who are all distinctly different at 0 XP.

Yes and to play exactly this balanced and unchanged there is only one argument left: Return to 2nd Edition.

Although I am still in favor of class variants for the reason Ryan mentioned (different right from the outstart), I do see a possible compromise with the prestige classes. There is no actual rule (that I am aware of) that says you can only take prestige classes at 6th-8th levels. The level at which a prestige class is available is based on the prerequisites.

3.x D&D variant solution: Make prestige classes with low prerequisites, such as 5 ranks in 2 or 3 key skills (Kn: Religion, Warcraft for Belinik and Haelyn, Kn: Nature for Erik and Ruornil, Bluff and Hide for Eloele, etc.), and simply the ability to cast divine spells. At this point a 2nd level cleric with the appropriate spheres, or even a Cleric1/Fighter1 of Haelyn or Cuiraecen (for example) could qualify for the dedicated prestige class. Allow the prestige class to have inifinite progression instead of a pre-epic 10 level cap (such as the Oriental Adventures Void Disciple prestige class), and you end up with specialty priests who have only 1st level general cleric spells in common. If priests of Belinik end up with Cure Light Wounds, I hardly see that as upsetting game balance or world dynamics.

The real problem with prestige classes, however, is that they are optional, leaving players free to play straight clerics with full access to the PHB spell lists and a few domains of their appropriate deities. So 12th level Clerics of Neserie could still cast Harm or Slay Living if they didn&#39;t take the prestige class, while their specialist sisters could not. Not exactly the flavor some of us were talking about. I beleive those of favoring the variant classes / specialty priests really want to see a Cerilia without the standard 3.x D&D clerics out of the PHB. We want to see clerics whose devotion to their individual deity shapes, empowers, and limits their character&#39;s abilities, spells, etc. In other words, strong distinctions between the different priesthoods, not minor ones (which is all PHB Domains really represent: very minor distinctions).


Another idea: you could make specific restrictors for clerics of specific deities or alignments, such as clerics of evil deities CANNOT channel positive energy, or cast spells that require the channeling of positive energy. *POOF&#33;* No more cure spells for clerics of Belinik and Kreisha. For balance, a similar restriction on negative energy channeling for good clerics is reasonable, too (no Harm for priests of Neserie). This is a rather logical extension of the positive/negative energy aspects of PHB clerics, and helps to balance their spontaneous casting abilities. Neutral clerics would probably choose one or the other, as usual. Just an idea.

Osprey

[Birthright-L]

> Since druids are one type of speciality priest in BR, this goes to show that not all priests need to stick with healing, but that it might be an idea to give every god a type of spells that can be converted to???



Changing the spontaneous casting method might be easier if there was more

use of descriptors within 3e. Or if the naming scheme was less colorful.

The spell descriptor was yet another good idea that 3e introduced but never

fully implemented. It`s fairly easy to say "cure" spells or "summon"

spells, but it gets harder when you try to add more stuff. Especially if

you try to make them useful. One of the best ideas I`ve heard in this area

was letting clerics cast their domain spells spontaneously: this makes a lot

of sense to me. (Though when I first heard this, it was proposed as a

feat.)



I still don`t think having "summon" spells is anywhere near as good as

having "cure" spells available on hand, but I guess so long as your adding

any versatility, it`s a good thing. Now the druid can memorize healing

spells and spontaneously cast his summon spells...



Officially though, I`m against changing the spontaneous healing thing. I`d

be in favor of giving PCs a choice of which types of spells to cast

spontaneously. I might be in favor of changing spontaneous casting if the

whole class was changed. But if all we`re doing is changing the spell lists

(as Gary proposes) and the spontaneous casting, I think we should just stop

at spell lists. And honestly, even in terms of changing the spell lists, I

don`t think it`s the right way to go.



-Lord Rahvin

[geeman]

Ariadne wrote:



>
Originally posted by Irdeggman

> Don`t go that way. Minor and major access was purely a 2nd ed

> thing.[...] Using the simplified format you`ve talked about would render

> a very poor quality product that I would be loath to include in the BRCS

> for quality control purposes that is.

>

> Yes, my opinion is exactly the same.



Not to put too fine a point on this, but that`s not the way spells were

noted in the BRCS.... The magician`s spell list followed the 3e PHB

annotated spell list format in the Playtest document, but the domains for

3e BR clerics didn`t. The bonus spells for domains are simply listed by

level in two columns. No one has mentioned it in context of the Playtest

document, and some of the grammatical/formatting responses have been pretty

detailed, which makes be doubt that the annotated spell list would reduce

product quality as badly as has been suggested. If it were such a

necessity to list spells that way shouldn`t it have come up by now as a

critique of the design team`s work?



In all honesty, I don`t think an annotated spell list is a particularly

necessary thing. There are dozens of non-annotated spell lists in other 3e

texts (even the core texts) and I`ve never heard a complaint about them

yet. Rather, the only time I`ve ever heard that format being made an issue

is here... and (too fine a point coming up again) in the context of general

opposition to the idea of specialty priests/spheres to begin with, so the

need to have annotated spell lists in this case rings somewhat

hollow. It`s fine if one has the room, but if space is at issue then

people seem perfectly capable of looking up spells from a simple list of

them without any trouble. At least, they`ve managed to do so in what must

be hundreds of D20 texts, Dragon articles, 3e D&D supplements, etc.



I should also note that in more than a few cases the annotation on

annotated spell lists are... well, somewhat less than useful. For example:

"Wall of Force. Wall is immune to damage." "True Seeing. See all things as

they really are." "Find the Path. Shows most direct way to a

location." Not exactly the most earth shattering revelations in those

summaries.... Others, of course, are more helpful, but as a way of listing

spells its pretty wasteful of space considering the amount of information

related. A page number reference to the full spell description would

probably be a better method, but I don`t think an annotation is necessary

at all since 3e (finally!) listed spells in alphabetical order with

descriptive text noting the class and level information in the spell

description.



Gary

[Mourn]

Osprey, you&#39;re still wrong about the metamagic application and the kind of action it requires.

Metamagic application to a spontaneous spell makes it a full-round action, not a casting time of 1 round. It&#39;s a subtle distinction, but an important one.

A sorcerer throwing a metamagic&#39;d fireball only casts it as a full-round action, not as a 1 round spell.

From the 3.5 PHB, page 88 (Metamagic Feats):

"If the spell&#39;s normal casting time is 1 action, casting a metamagic version is a full-round action for a sorcerer or bard. (This isn&#39;t the same as a 1-round casting time, as described under Cast a Spell, page 143.)"

So, a spontaneous casting cleric could throw out an Empowered cure spell as a full-round action, not a 1 round casting time spell. Therefore, he&#39;d only be vulnerable to disruption during his turn... not for the full round.

[RaspK_FOG]

Well, I for one have read the spell lists of core prestige classes like the blackguard or the assassin; in fact, the only time it got a bit clogged up was only this day that I started writing up (and almost finished; needs some finetuning) the spell list for the Elementalist prestige class I am designing, and the only problem was derived from the fact that it has 9 levels of spells, many of them normally allowed to none other but druids or clerics.

Anyway, I believe that prestige classes are not an option for the exact same reason pointed out above: they are free to choose or leave them be, and we want to achieve flavour here&#33;

Anyway, I do think that clerics are more balanced than in 2e, and they certainly are more enjoyable&#33; If, in fact, we get clerical festivity-and-other-trivia cycles as I have said earlier on in the Atlas, I would really love it&#33;

And yes, I am more toward a more specialised spontaneous casting thingy, but this should not be taken too far.

And yes - thank thee, my lord, finally a person with the same ideals as I&#33; - dearly yes, I TOO want to see reverent-father priests and warring clerics aside, without resorting to Xth level Cleric/Yth level [Aristocrat or Adept or Expert or Whatever]&#33;&#33;&#33;



All in all, I believe that the Foci concept was best. If that is combined with 2 classes, instead of one, the standard cleric and the priest, that would be, in my opinion, the best.

As a suggestion, the cleric should get fewer spells (up to 6th-level, like the bard), and the priest should be able to pick the same weapons a wizard can, cast up to 9th-level spells, and, while able to cast spells in armour with no hindrance, be proficient only with light armour (and maybe light shields and the buckler).

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by Osprey@Sep 12 2003, 11:20 AM
There is no actual rule (that I am aware of) that says you can only take prestige classes at 6th-8th levels. The level at which a prestige class is available is based on the prerequisites.

Osprey
Actually there is a rule now. pg 197 of the 3.5 DMG "When you design a prestige class, make sure that characters must be at least 5th level before they can meet the entry requirements."

[RaspK_FOG]

FEH&#33; That sounds just like the suggestion of not using Ability scores as requirements, when Feats can ask of you to have a minimum ability score, and still be one of the most common requirements of Prestige Classes&#33;

Sniff&#33; And I thought I had the perfect idea for the Nature Arcane Spell-casting elf&#33; That was a bad point&#33;

[Osprey]

Osprey, you&#39;re still wrong about the metamagic application and the kind of action it requires.

Metamagic application to a spontaneous spell makes it a full-round action, not a casting time of 1 round. It&#39;s a subtle distinction, but an important one.

A sorcerer throwing a metamagic&#39;d fireball only casts it as a full-round action, not as a 1 round spell.

From the 3.5 PHB, page 88 (Metamagic Feats):

"If the spell&#39;s normal casting time is 1 action, casting a metamagic version is a full-round action for a sorcerer or bard. (This isn&#39;t the same as a 1-round casting time, as described under Cast a Spell, page 143.)"

So, a spontaneous casting cleric could throw out an Empowered cure spell as a full-round action, not a 1 round casting time spell. Therefore, he&#39;d only be vulnerable to disruption during his turn... not for the full round.

3.0 PHB (I don&#39;t own the 3.5, so this is what I&#39;m going on), p. 125 Magic Actions in Combat)

Under Casting Time: "A few spells have a casting time of 1 full round or longer. A spell that takes 1 full round to cast is a full-round action, and it comes into effect just before the beginning of your turn in the round after you began casting the spell. You then act normally after the spell is completed." [italics are mine]

The last paragraph then elaborates on the need to maintain concentration until the spell is complete.
Osprey

[Mourn]

Originally posted by Osprey@Sep 12 2003, 07:14 PM
3.0 PHB (I don&#39;t own the 3.5, so this is what I&#39;m going on), p. 125 Magic Actions in Combat)

Under Casting Time: "A few spells have a casting time of 1 full round or longer. A spell that takes 1 full round to cast is a full-round action, and it comes into effect just before the beginning of your turn in the round after you began casting the spell. You then act normally after the spell is completed." [italics are mine]

The last paragraph then elaborates on the need to maintain concentration until the spell is complete.
Osprey
From the 3.0 SRD:

"Some spellcasters choose spells as they cast them. They can choose when they cast their spells whether to use metamagic feats to improve them. As with other spellcasters, the improved spell uses up a higher-level spell slot. If its normal casting time is 1 action, casting a metamagic spell is a full-round action for a spellcaster that chooses spells as they cast them. For spells with a longer casting time, it takes an extra full-round action to cast the spell.

Spontaneous Casting and Metamagic Feats: Clerics spontaneously casting cure or inflict spells can cast metamagic versions of them. Casting a 1-action metamagic spell spontaneously is a full-round action, and spells with longer casting times take an extra full-round action to cast."

A full-round action, not a 1 round casting time. There is a difference.

A full attack action is a full-round action. Casting a metamagic&#39;d spell whose original casting time is 1 action is a full-round action. It does not increase the casting time to 1 round, however.

And as for my first quote being 3.5... D&D is currently in version 3.5, and WotC has made it very clear that any of their intellectual property that is being written by 3rd party sources must be compatible with the most current version of D&D. Which is why the Dragonlance Campaign Setting is 3.5, that is why Ravenloft is being updated to 3.5 (even though there already was a 3.0 book). Therefore the BRCS will undoubtedly be required to support 3.5 rules.

[Osprey]

Mourn,

OK, I&#39;m getting tired of belaboring this point, but I thought my last quote made it pretty clear that a full-round action when casting spells takes 1 full round. It is not the same as a normal full-round action. I don&#39;t know which book SRD is, but it only repeats what I&#39;ve read in the Players&#39; Handbook, and it&#39;s not a core rulebook anyways. Besides, if you want to stand on the 3.5 pulpit and preach rules, then I suggest you quote from there. Unless they actually changed the rules on casting time (and I suggest you thouroughly check the Combat section concerning spells), then I&#39;m pretty certain it does take 1 whole round to complete any spell whose casting time becomes a full-round action.

This is my last post on the issue. You may remain adamant on your interpretation, and I have yielded where I recognized my error concerning clerics and spontaneous cure/inflict spells. In truth, I simply prefer my interpretation of the rules that limit spontaneous casting and sorcerers/bards not having such an easy time with metamagic (giving up a 30&#39; move to cast a spell isn&#39;t much of a sacrifice or risk on its own).

At some point I&#39;ll get a hold of the 3.5 PHB and see if the rules have changed at all concerning this. As for the BRCS, it really doesn&#39;t make much difference: they don&#39;t need to publish rules on casting times anyways unless they&#39;re changing something. And it&#39;s up to any individual player/DM to decide if they want to adopt 3.5 or not. I for one prefer not to be a slave of the industry, and will take what I like and tweak what I don&#39;t to have what I consider to be the best possible version of D&D. And if I believe those are good ideas, especially concerning BR, I&#39;ll post them here.

Osprey

[RaspK_FOG]

Mourn, I think that Osprey is right on this... Full-round spells mean that you cast the spell for the full round, and the spell takes place at the beginning of your turn on the next round. If the PHB says so, it seems you must be doing something else up until your turn on the next round...

[Chris24601]

I don&#39;t know which book SRD is, but it only repeats what I&#39;ve read in the Players&#39; Handbook, and it&#39;s not a core rulebook anyways.

First off, the SRD is the System Resource Document... the D&D rules stripped of all flavor text for use in 3rd party supplements. Its as CORE as it gets.

Second, all language about a spontaneous metamagiced spell taking effect at the beginning of your next turn has been stricken from the 3.5 Player&#39;s Handbook and the 3.5 SRD so casting a spontaneous metamagic spell is a normal full-round action and thus takes effect immediately (just as damage from a full attack action takes effect immediately).

Third, this distinction was clarified in a number of erratas long before 3.5 came along so its not like this "change" is that controversal anyway.

[Birthright-L]

> I`m working on setting up a gaming group. I`m partial to Birthright,

> but I`m likely to be outvoted in favor of Forgotten Realms. Have any of

> you run/been in campaigns in a different setting which used bloodlines,

> regency, domains, etc? I`m interested in hearing your experience with

> things like integrating the backstory, rules modifications, game balance,

> and anything else you found interesting about your campaign.



If you want to play in the Forgotten Realms, the plot from Baldur`s Gate game and novel has some elements that are similar to Birthright. The Bhaalspawn are creatures with Divine Blood, just like the Blood Scions in Birthright, and they gain special abilities similar to those granted by the Bloodline. Many of them are also transformed physically which also happens to Scions of Azrai. The main character in the computer game even gains better special abilities as the game progresses, which could be seen as increase of his Bloodline. If you want to play a Birthright-style game in FR, you could have you players run characters who are scions of dead gods and have just discovered that they can bind themselves with lands and people, making them much more efficient rulers.

[Mourn]

Originally posted by Chris24601@Sep 13 2003, 12:51 PM

I don&#39;t know which book SRD is, but it only repeats what I&#39;ve read in the Players&#39; Handbook, and it&#39;s not a core rulebook anyways.

First off, the SRD is the System Resource Document... the D&D rules stripped of all flavor text for use in 3rd party supplements. Its as CORE as it gets.

Second, all language about a spontaneous metamagiced spell taking effect at the beginning of your next turn has been stricken from the 3.5 Player&#39;s Handbook and the 3.5 SRD so casting a spontaneous metamagic spell is a normal full-round action and thus takes effect immediately (just as damage from a full attack action takes effect immediately).

Third, this distinction was clarified in a number of erratas long before 3.5 came along so its not like this "change" is that controversal anyway.
Wonderful. Another person who has actually read and kept updated on the rules of the game.

[irdeggman]

Osprey, Mourn and any others that are concerned,

The question of full-round actions and 1 round csting times was just specifically addressed in Sage Advice.

From Sage Advice, Dragon #312

" While we’re on the subject, just when do so-called full-round actions take place? Does a sorcerer’s heightened spell (or any other spell with a metamagic feat applied) go off on the sorcerer’s turn, or not until just before the sorcerer’s action on the following turn? What about other full-round actions? The coup de grace has generated a lot of problems in our campaign. When is this action finished? If it’s not over until just before the attacker’s next action, can the target’s friends save her, perhaps by getting in the way or dragging her out of reach?

Any full-round action takes place entirely during the acting character’s turn. That is, the action begins and ends during the acting character’s turn in the initiative order. Although taking a full-round action leaves you no time to move (except, possibly a 5-foot step) it does not continue into the next round in the same way a spell with a casting time of 1 round does. A full-round action is quicker than a 1-round casting time.

Delivering a coup de grace requires a full-round action, not 1 round. The coup de grace is delivered during the attacker’s turn, and there’s not much the target’s allies can do about it except to drag the target out of reach before the attacker can act (this requires the allies to act before the attacker does during the current round), or fell the attacker with attacks of opportunity that are triggered when the attacker attempts the coup de grace (this requires the allies to be in position to threaten the attacker). Since attacks of opportunity are resolved before the action that triggers them, they can prevent a coup de grace if they drop the attacker. Also, a helpless character’s allies could ready an action to attack anyone that tries to hurt the helpless ally, but since doing so requires the ready action, they’re usually better off dragging their helpless ally to a place of safety."


I think that pretty much sums up what the "official" ruling is on how that works. I hope this can resolve the disagreements.

[Athos69]

What about pegging a CR to the DC of a domain action *before* any RP are spent?

If this isn&#39;t taken into account, then you have a dichotomy between a regent who isn&#39;t that good at ruling, has a province that isn&#39;t particularly helpful, and had a DC of 17 to a rule holding action, but has saved a large pool of RP. If he is intelligent, he is going to be throwing as much RP as he can safely get away with to get the job done.

On the other hand, you have a 16th level Noble, who is a master administrator, has skill synergies and Administer with 20 ranks, the province is willing to carry him and his entouage on their backs to whatever building site he chooses. His base DC is 13 before any RP is spent, but he has few RP left after fighting off a challenge.

So which regent has the greatest *intrinsic* challenge with his domain action?

The answer is the DC 17 action, and XP should be earned from that succesful action at a set DC, regardless of how many RP are spent to modify the roll. The RP spent are alot like HP in this case -- who cares how much a character bleeds in an encounter, so long as the opponent is defeated before the character dies.

As a regent&#39;s level scales up, these domain actions will become intrinsicly easier, through the additions of feats and the +1 to domain action rolls per 5 ranks in a relevant skill.

By approaching the XP awards in this fashion, you will find that the award for a low-level character performing a domain action will be higher than a high-level character performing the same task.

Just my rambling &#036;0.02 worth.

-Mike

[Osprey]

Mike,
Actually, I&#39;ve been thinking along those very same lines recently as I&#39;ve been running my own BR campaign. I definitely agree, and I like the RP - HP analogy, although RP vary a lot more than HP. Still, I think it helps keep bloodlines a bit more seperate from the base character stats, which maintains the feel of the original game somewhat.

I think your system is a good one. So DC 15 is a CR equal to the character&#39;s level? After all, you&#39;ll get a good-sized XP award since it&#39;s just one character. My old problem with higher rewards for less competent regents is still a bit of sticking point for me, though. [sigh]
-Osprey

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by Osprey@Sep 15 2003, 02:03 AM
Mike,
Actually, I&#39;ve been thinking along those very same lines recently as I&#39;ve been running my own BR campaign. I definitely agree, and I like the RP - HP analogy, although RP vary a lot more than HP. Still, I think it helps keep bloodlines a bit more seperate from the base character stats, which maintains the feel of the original game somewhat.

I think your system is a good one. So DC 15 is a CR equal to the character&#39;s level? After all, you&#39;ll get a good-sized XP award since it&#39;s just one character. My old problem with higher rewards for less competent regents is still a bit of sticking point for me, though. [sigh]
-Osprey
Didn&#39;t I post something similiar earlier on this thread? Yes, I did. . .


Here is something that I had originally proposed for inclusion in the BRCS for domain action experience, but we dissed it as being too complex.

Variant
Award experience for successful domain actions. This method is of the most benefit to a PBEM or domain based game. The regent gains experience as if it was an even CR encounter, that is his character level is equal to the CR. Modify the CR based upon the modified DC of the domain action. On a successful action against DC 15 the CR for the experience award is equal to the regent’s character level, modify this by 1 for every 2 modifiers to the DC. If the modified DC is 17, the regent gains experience equivalent to a CR of 2, if the modified DC is 13 the regent gains experience equivalent to a CR ½ encounter. For example a 5th level regent successfully accomplishes a domain action with a CR of 15, he would receive 1,500 experience points, if the DC was reduced to 9 he would only receive 500 experience points (an effective CR 2), if the DC was increased to 19 he would receive 3,000 experience points. Greater challenges gain greater rewards.


With the DC being the "net" DC after applying RP and other modifers to the task. The point being that if someone did things to reduce the challenge he should receive less relative xp for the task. This would be like bringing in an additional 20 bodyguards to help the PC "overcome" the obstacle of 1 goblin. Regents have access to more resources than do the normal character which makes many things "easier" for him to accomplish. Basically the easier something is the less xp a character gains for perfoming the task.

[Osprey]

Duane,
I think Mike was responding to your emal on this from a while back, actually. That&#39;s what it seemed to me. My DC 15 comment was actually based on your earlier post (from memory, though; I couldn&#39;t remember where you actually posted it).

The variant was on not counting RP expenditure when determining CR.

[ConjurerDragon]

irdeggman schrieb:



>This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.

> You can view the entire thread at:

> http://www.birthright.net/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=36&t=1876

> irdeggman wrote:

>
Mike,

> Actually, I`ve been thinking along those very same lines recently as I`ve been running my own BR campaign. I definitely agree, and I like the RP - HP analogy, although RP vary a lot more than HP. Still, I think it helps keep bloodlines a bit more seperate from the base character stats, which maintains the feel of the original game somewhat.

> I think your system is a good one. So DC 15 is a CR equal to the character`s level? After all, you`ll get a good-sized XP award since it`s just one character. My old problem with higher rewards for less competent regents is still a bit of sticking point for me, though. [sigh]

> -Osprey

> Didn`t I post something similiar earlier on this thread? Yes, I did. . .

> Here is something that I had originally proposed for inclusion in the BRCS for domain action experience, but we dissed it as being too complex.

> Variant

> Award experience for successful domain actions. This method is of the most benefit to a PBEM or domain based game. The regent gains experience as if it was an even CR encounter, that is his character level is equal to the CR. Modify the CR based upon the modified DC of the domain action. On a successful action against DC 15 the CR for the experience award is equal to the regents character level, modify this by 1 for every 2 modifiers to the DC. If the modified DC is 17, the regent gains experience equivalent to a CR of 2, if the modified DC is 13 the regent gains experience equivalent to a CR ½ encounter. For example a 5th level regent successfully accomplishes a domain action with a CR of 15, he would receive 1,500 experience points, if the DC was reduced to 9 he would only receive 500 experience points (an effective CR 2), if the DC was increased to 19 he would receive 3,000 experience points. Greater challenges gain greater rewards.

>

> With the DC being the "net" DC after applying RP and other modifers to the task. The point being that if someone did things to reduce the challenge he should receive less relative xp for the task. This would be like bringing in an additional 20 bodyguards to help the PC "overcome" the obstacle of 1 goblin. Regents have access to more resources than do the normal character which makes many things "easier" for him to accomplish. Basically the easier something is the less xp a character gains for perfoming the task.

>

>

Wouldn´t it make sense the other way around?

The DC is the same for the action to be acomplished, but the ECL of the

regent would change due to the resources he has at his disposal - and

thus reducing the XP award.



Whan I use for example a potion of climbing the DC of the mountain to

climb does not change. Why should the DC of the domain action change?

bye

Michael

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by ConjurerDragon@Sep 15 2003, 10:33 AM
Wouldn´t it make sense the other way around?

The DC is the same for the action to be acomplished, but the ECL of the

regent would change due to the resources he has at his disposal - and

thus reducing the XP award.



Whan I use for example a potion of climbing the DC of the mountain to

climb does not change. Why should the DC of the domain action change?

bye

Michael


No, because the regent is modifying the challenge not changing his level. Just because the regent has that amount of resources (RPs in this example) at his disposal doesn&#39;t mean he is using them. Also RP collection is not really tied into character level so this is really a bad corrolary to use for this one. Using the bidding wars of RP in a domain action the actual CR changes if this example is being used. In truth it is actually the modifiers to the action, so there could be a negative adjustment to the roll which in effectively changes the CR.

The bottom line is pretty similar though. If it is easier to accomplish then the regent gets relatively less exp for the action.

No you can see why we dismissed this as being too complicated a system to use.

[Athos69]

OK...


I have another couple of comments -- this time about the troops.

Firstly, where do racial abilities factor into the battlefield unit? Dwarves, for example, gain a + 2 dodge bonus against Orogs and Ogres (p.15, BRCS). Should they not receive that on the battlefield as an addition to their defense?

Secondly, when the BRCS was released, there were several troop types that vanished. Dwarven Artillerists and a Dwarven form of Medium Infantry were axed from Travis Doom&#39;s version.

I think that not only should we bring back an inexpensive form of garrison infantry (Dwarven Axemen / Dwarven Hammers?) and the Atillerists, but we should also grant them a scout unit to help them guard against and locate Orog warrens.

[Athos69]

One other thing... (gads, now I&#39;m starting to sound like Columbo...)

A friend and were going through the troop costs and noted that while Anuirean and Dwarven troops were pretty much dead on the money, we noted some errors and inflation in the costs of the Brecht units. Corrected costs are below.

Archers 2
Artillerists 4
Cavalry 4
Infantry 2
Infantry, Elite 3
Irregular 1.5
Levies draft
Marines 4
Scouts 2.5

[Osprey]

Athos69,
If you&#39;re posting about stuff that&#39;s on a different subject from the current thread, I recommend starting a new topic on the forum. Especially if it&#39;s corrections like these. It will help other viewers find that kind of useful info. more easily than somewhere deep within a continuing thread on a braod subject.

-Osprey